They are opposing counsel in a court proceeding, discussing the scope of witness testimony before the judge.
Both are speaking on behalf of the defense, discussing their shared expert witness, indicating they are co-counsel.
They are opposing counsel in a legal proceeding, arguing different positions before the court regarding the testimony of a witness, Mr. Flatley.
They are opposing counsel in a legal proceeding, arguing before the judge about the admissibility and scope of witness testimony.
They are both participating in the same court proceeding, likely as opposing counsel, as they both interact with the judge on procedural points and confirm there was no objection to a process.
They are opposing counsel in a court proceeding, discussing a legal issue before the judge.
They are both attorneys participating in the same court proceeding, likely representing opposing sides, as they discuss the government's evidence and representations.
They are opposing counsel in a court proceeding, with Mr. Rohrbach representing the government and Ms. Menninger representing the defense.
Both are addressing the court as legal counsel in the same proceeding, indicating they are likely opposing attorneys in a case.
DOJ-OGR-00013029.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a conversation between the judge, government counsel (Mr. Rohrbach), and opposing counsel (Ms. Menninger) regarding the scope of testimony for a witness named Mr. Flatley. The government agrees not to question Mr. Flatley about 'CDs' on direct examination, resolving the issue and making prior preparation on the topic moot for the time being.
DOJ-OGR-00011643.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge, Ms. Menninger, and Mr. Rohrbach regarding the rules for disclosing expert testimony and the scope of evidence contained on several hard drives marked as exhibits. The attorneys debate the government's representations about which documents will be used, and Mr. Rohrbach clarifies that a witness, Mr. Kelso, will testify on the general principles of document creation.
DOJ-OGR-00013167.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a discussion about newly discovered text messages between a person named Jane and her brother. The government attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, requests a delay in calling a witness, Brian, to allow time to analyze the messages. The defense attorney, Ms. Menninger, agrees but expresses concern about the piecemeal disclosure of information and requests a formal, under-oath representation from the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00013172.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the judge (The Court), Ms. Menninger, and Mr. Rohrbach about several procedural matters. Key topics include the low probability of calling a certain 'brother' as a witness, a past request from a November 23rd pretrial conference to share Dr. Rocchio's testimony with experts, and the government's request to speak with a witness named Jane about logistics after her testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018614.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and counsel for the government (Mr. Rohrbach) and an opposing party (Ms. Menninger). Mr. Rohrbach confirms that the government will not question a witness, Mr. Flatley, about 'CDs' during direct examination, which resolves a procedural issue and satisfies the court and Ms. Menninger. The judge remarks that prior preparation for this line of questioning is now moot but may be saved for future use.
DOJ-OGR-00008335.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. In the transcript, the judge discusses the disclosure of expert witness opinions with defense counsel, Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach. The judge agrees to a deadline of the upcoming Saturday for the defense to provide these opinions and reminds them of their obligation under Rule 16 to provide a clear notice of the opinions, stating that it is not a "scavenger hunt."
DOJ-OGR-00008333.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. Attorneys Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach are arguing before the court about the nature of a witness, Mr. Flatley. The central issue is whether Mr. Flatley will testify as a fact witness or an expert witness regarding his methods for user data extraction, and whether sufficient notice was provided to the opposing side.
DOJ-OGR-00018612.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Menninger before a judge. The primary issue is the scope of testimony for an upcoming witness, Mr. Flatley, concerning whether a file's 'created date' is the same as its 'modified date' on a CD, and whether this constitutes factual testimony or requires an expert opinion.
DOJ-OGR-00018757.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys (Ms. Menninger and Mr. Rohrbach). They discuss procedural issues, including a potential motion to call a witness's brother, a past request from a November 23rd pretrial conference to share Dr. Rocchio's expert testimony, and the government's communication with a witness named Jane after she left the stand.
Entities connected to both MR. ROHRBACH and MS. MENNINGER
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein relationship