Mr. Everdell
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Defense counsel |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Mr. Rodgers
|
Legal representative |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Rodgers
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Business associate |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Aznaran
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Espinosa
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Parkinson
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Tracy Chapell
|
Professional |
7
|
2 | |
|
person
Visoski
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Chapell
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
DAVID RODGERS
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
JANE
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. Sud
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Questioner
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Representation |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Cimberly Espinosa
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mr. McHugh
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Business associate |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Jury Deliberations and Court Response to Note | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Introduction of Government Exhibit 1004 (Stipulation) | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross Examination of Tracy Chapell | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of photographic exhibits and the timing of defense obj... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing or appeal arguments (Case 22-1426). | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Lawrence Visoski | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding upcoming sentencing and review of the presentence report. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Rule 29 Argument | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury instructions and a question asked by the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing Hearing / Pre-sentencing argument | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Patrick McHugh | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness Kelly Maguire | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Dawson regarding a residence and inconsistent statements. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding supplemental jury instructions | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of David Rodgers | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court ruling on the 'attorney witness issue' regarding the defense case-in-chief. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding Maxwell's sentencing or appeal points concerning her role in the conspiracy. | Courtroom (likely SDNY) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Government's Exhibit 296R | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Extension of Jury Deliberations | New York City Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Defendant's Exhibit MA1 into evidence under seal. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conference between Defense and Government | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury questions and instructions for Count Four. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Trial Resumption | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of Michael Dawson | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding jury instructions and admissibility of testimony for conspiracy counts. | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017366.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The judge begins by noting on the record that a report confirmed all members of the public wishing to observe the trial have been accommodated in the main courtroom or overflow rooms. The judge then asks Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell if there are any other matters before the jurors are brought in, to which they both reply in the negative.
DOJ-OGR-00017357.jpg
A court transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) dated August 10, 2022. The Judge discusses sustaining objections and finalizing redactions for a document. Later, following a recess, the Court reconvenes to address a note (likely from the jury) requesting the transcript of Larry Visoski (Epstein's long-time pilot), which is identified as Court Exhibit 20.
DOJ-OGR-00017341.jpg
This legal document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Everdell. The attorney argues for a supplemental jury instruction concerning the territorial limits of New York law, which the judge rejects. The judge then raises concerns about potential trial interruptions from a health 'variant' and the need for jurors to plan for extended deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00017340.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between defense counsel Mr. Everdell and the presiding judge. Mr. Everdell is concerned the jury might convict his client, Ms. Maxwell, based on conduct that occurred solely in New Mexico for a charge under New York law and requests a supplemental instruction. The judge denies the request, stating the proposed instruction is incorrect and that the defense missed an earlier opportunity to limit the related testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00017338.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. The presiding judge explains the decision to extend jury deliberations by one hour each day due to a significant spike in COVID-19 cases (omicron variant) in New York City, which poses a risk of disrupting the trial. A participant, Mr. Everdell, briefly acknowledges the judge's statement.
DOJ-OGR-00017328.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys (MS. MOE and MR. EVERDELL) regarding a note received from the jury. The judge directs the attorneys to review jury instruction number 21. Ms. Moe, representing the government, states that it is within the court's discretion to set the deliberation schedule and agrees that the jury should be advised to expect an extended session the next day.
DOJ-OGR-00017325.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Menninger, Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Everdell) regarding a jury question. The conversation focuses on how to properly instruct the jury on 'Count Four', specifically concerning the intent and purpose of travel in relation to an 'aiding and abetting' charge. The judge resolves the ambiguity by directing the jury to review the full written instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00017322.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between a judge (THE COURT) and two attorneys, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Menninger, regarding the legal standard for finding a defendant guilty of aiding in the transportation of a person named 'Jane'. The discussion specifically focuses on whether a flight to New Mexico must have had a 'significant or motivating purpose' for illegal sexual activity to meet the criteria for a conviction.
DOJ-OGR-00017321.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Judge regarding a note sent by the jury during deliberations. The debate centers on whether the jury is asking about the general legal concept of 'aiding and abetting' or specifically about Ms. Maxwell's role in arranging flights to and from New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00017319.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell and the Judge discuss a jury note regarding transportation and accountability for a return flight from New Mexico. The debate centers on whether Maxwell can be convicted based on arranging a return flight from an area where a victim, 'Jane,' claims sexual abuse occurred, as opposed to the initial flight to New Mexico which had alleged illegal intent.
DOJ-OGR-00017318.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a legal discussion between a judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Moe regarding a question from the jury. The parties are trying to decide how to clarify an instruction related to a 'multi-leg trip' and 'Count Four', with Mr. Everdell suggesting a specific text and Ms. Moe arguing it is not what the jury is asking about.
DOJ-OGR-00017317.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript, dated August 10, 2022, pertaining to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a discussion between MR. EVERDELL and MS. MOE, addressing 'Your Honor,' regarding a defendant's alleged role in transporting 'Jane' to and from New Mexico. The central issue is whether these flights were intended for illegal sexual activity and if the defendant's actions constitute aiding and abetting, with the jury currently deliberating on these points for a potential conviction on Count Four.
DOJ-OGR-00017312.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The court receives a note from the jury requesting the transcript of testimony provided by David Rodgers (Epstein's pilot). The Judge and counsel (Ms. Moe for the government, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Sternheim for the defense) discuss the request and the schedule for jury deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00017311.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between the court and several individuals about a new rule requiring N95 or KN95 masks in the courthouse. The court also addresses the handling of two notes requesting evidence, specifically "Parkinson's transcript" (to be provided) and "Matt's transcript" (which has already been sent).
DOJ-OGR-00017309.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT), and two attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Moe). They are discussing how to respond to a note from the jury, which requested a transcript of 'Matt's' testimony and a definition of 'enticement'. The judge decides to send the transcript and directs the jury to specific page and line numbers in the jury instructions for the definition.
DOJ-OGR-00017308.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), defense attorney Mr. Everdell, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the legal definition of the word 'entice' for jury instructions. The Judge cites specific case law (*Almonte*, *Dupigny*, and *Broxmeyer*) to define the term as 'to attract, induce, or lure using hope or desire.'
DOJ-OGR-00017307.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge ('The Court') and an attorney ('Mr. Everdell'). They are discussing the legal definition of the word "entice," with the judge citing precedent from the cases *United States v. Almonte* and *United States v. Dupigny*. Mr. Everdell attempts to recall another case related to a Rule 29 argument he previously made.
DOJ-OGR-00017306.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details proceedings where the jury is not present, and the Court discusses a note received from the jury requesting office supplies (Post-Its, highlighters), a transcript of testimony by a person named "Matt," and a definition of the legal term "enticement." Ms. Moe argues that the jury should be referred back to the original jury instructions stating that such terms have their "ordinary everyday meanings."
DOJ-OGR-00017296.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge and attorneys after the jury has been dismissed, focusing on procedural matters such as the government's review of transcripts and the defense's readiness to proceed. The judge also outlines instructions for contacting the alternate jurors to inform them that deliberations are ongoing.
DOJ-OGR-00017291.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a debate between attorneys (Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell) and the judge regarding a jury question. The core issue is whether the testimony of a witness named Annie can be considered for conspiracy counts, given a prior instruction that it did not describe illegal sexual activity. The judge rules that the testimony is relevant and permissible for the jury to consider in relation to the conspiracy counts.
DOJ-OGR-00017290.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal discussion between a judge, Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Comey. The central issue is whether a limiting instruction should be given to the jury regarding the testimony of a witness named Annie, and how her testimony relates to specific counts (One, Two, Three, and Four) in an indictment. The parties disagree on the necessity and scope of such an instruction, with the judge ultimately asserting that the answer to the underlying question is 'yes'.
DOJ-OGR-00017289.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between a judge and multiple counsel regarding a note from the jury. The jury, via Court Exhibit 9, asks if they can consider 'Annie's testimony' as evidence of conspiracy for two specific counts. The government's counsel, Ms. Comey, affirms this, while another counsel, Mr. Everdell, requests time to confer on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00017273.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Pagliuca, Mr. Everdell) about the procedures for jury deliberations. The judge outlines the schedule, including a 9:00 a.m. start time, and clarifies that exhibits will be provided automatically to the jury. The discussion also covers the roles of court staff like the deputy and marshal in managing the jury process.
DOJ-OGR-00013996.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion during a trial break. The judge instructs the attorneys (Pomerantz, Sternheim, Rohrbach, Everdell) to confer and narrow their disagreements regarding a witness's prior inconsistent statements. The judge states an intention to review these statements during the lunch break to help resolve the issues later that day.
DOJ-OGR-00013962.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the beginning of Elizabeth Loftus's direct examination. Ms. Loftus, identified as a professor and scientist, is called as a witness by the Defendant. The excerpt includes procedural discussions between Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Everdell, and THE COURT regarding the handling of an exhibit and the commencement of the witness's testimony.
Status of Bequest and Fines
Discussion regarding whether a bequest should be considered an asset for fines given the estate's bankruptcy.
Jury Instructions for Ms. Maxwell's case
Mr. Everdell argues for a supplemental jury instruction regarding the relevance of conduct in New Mexico to a conviction under New York law. The Court rejects the proposed instruction, stating it is incorrect and that the defense failed to seek a limiting instruction on the testimony earlier.
Ghislaine Maxwell's and Jeffrey Epstein's conduct
Mr. Everdell questions witness Ms. Espinosa about whether she ever saw Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein engage in inappropriate activity with underage girls during her six years of employment. Ms. Espinosa denies seeing any such activity.
Cross-examination regarding a photograph
Mr. Everdell questions the witness, Mr. Rodgers, about a photograph (exhibits GX250 and C10), asking if he has seen it before and if he recognizes the person in it. The witness tentatively identifies the person as Eva Dubin.
Cross-examination and submission of evidence
Mr. Everdell questions Ms. Chapell about FedEx invoices, offers Defense Exhibit TC-1 into evidence under temporary seal, and concludes his questioning.
Admission of Government Exhibits 925 and 925-R
Mr. Everdell states he has 'No objection' to the government's offer of the exhibits.
Impeachment of witness Juan Alessi
Mr. Everdell argues that they should be allowed to impeach Juan Alessi using his prior inconsistent statements to Sergeant Dawson regarding a burglary.
Proposed edits to legal document language
Mr. Everdell proposes several edits to a document (pages 20 and 21) to the Court. These include omitting the phrase "or foreign" in multiple places, proposing to replace "an individual" with "Jane", and reiterating a previously overruled objection to the word "coerced".
Admissibility of Government Exhibits 250, 251, and 270
Mr. Everdell discusses photographic evidence with the judge. He confirms Exhibit 270 will not be offered, notes the prior exclusion of Exhibit 251 (a photo of a naked toddler), and argues that Exhibit 250, which depicts Jeffrey Epstein with a young girl, should be excluded as irrelevant and prejudicial.
Redacted evidence and witness stipulation
Mr. Everdell discusses the logistics of preparing redacted versions of evidence (massage room photos) and informs the court that the government and defense have agreed to a testimonial stipulation for witness Sergeant Michael Dawson.
Courtroom procedure for handling documents and witness an...
Mr. Everdell agrees with the court's directions and explains the careful procedure they have planned for handling paper binders and manila folders to respect the court's ruling on witness anonymity.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding office seating arrangements and introduction of Exhibit 327.
Epstein's residences in Palm Beach
Mr. Everdell questions Mr. Rodgers about the location of Epstein's residence at 358 El Brillo Way and a time when Epstein temporarily moved to a rental property during renovations.
Conscious avoidance jury charge
Mr. Everdell argues that a 'conscious avoidance' charge would invite the jury to convict on an improper basis. The Court responds by asking for a specific response to the argument about the defendant's lack of knowledge.
Procedural point on cross-examination
Everdell raises a concern about the government referring to passengers as 'and others' without naming them during direct examination.
2007 helicopter purchase and related financial transactions
Mr. Everdell questions Mr. McHugh about a series of financial transactions in June 2007 involving Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Air Ghislaine, and Sikorsky for the purchase of a helicopter.
Withdrawal of request for a limiting instruction
Mr. Everdell informs the court that after conferring with the government, they are withdrawing their request for a limiting instruction, believing it would be counterproductive ('the cure is worse than the disease').
Motion for Acquittal
Motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a) regarding insufficiency of evidence in the S2 indictment.
Witness order
Mr. Everdell requests a preview of the witness order in light of the day's developments.
Limiting Instruction Edits
Discussion regarding changing wording in jury instructions from 'sexual conduct' to 'physical contact'.
Admission of Exhibit RS-1
Defense offers RS-1 for identification; prosecution agrees if under seal; accepted by Court.
Border crossing data systems (TECS and APIS)
Mr. Everdell questions the witness, Aznaran, about the definition of 'border crossing' and the mechanisms by which traveler data is entered into government databases. Aznaran explains that international airline manifests are submitted to the Advanced Passenger Information System (APIS), which then links to the TECS system.
Exclusion of evidence (Government Exhibits 288, 270, 296)
Mr. Everdell argues that a portion of a video walk-through (Exhibit 296) should be excluded because it shows a photograph on a wall that the Court has already excluded as a separate piece of evidence (Exhibit 288).
Withdrawal of request for a limiting instruction
Mr. Everdell informs the court that after conferring with the government, they are withdrawing their request for a limiting instruction, believing it would be counterproductive ('the cure is worse than the disease').
Age of allegations and lack of evidence
Everdell argues that highlighting the 25-year age of the allegations is fair because records get destroyed over time, explaining the absence of corroborating evidence like geo-location data.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity