Andrew Rohrbach
Snapshot
| Field | Documented information |
|---|---|
| Name | Andrew Rohrbach |
| Epstein-related role | Assistant U.S. attorney on the Ghislaine Maxwell prosecution team |
| Principal case | United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330, Southern District of New York |
| Trial colleagues | Maurene Comey, Alison Moe and Lara Pomerantz |
| Individually documented trial work | Examinations of Daniel Besselsen, Paul Kane, Janine Gill Velez, Tracy Chapell and William Brown |
| Evidence handled | Institutional correspondence, school records, employment records, courier invoices and identification records |
| Other documented work | Government submissions on disclosure, authentication and admissibility; courtroom arguments on documentary evidence |
| Trial result | Five guilty verdicts and one acquittal in December 2021; 20-year sentence in June 2022 |
| Later case status | Direct appeal affirmed in 2024; Section 2255 relief denied August 25, 2026 |
| Current professional role | Partner in Jenner & Block’s New York office; joined September 30, 2025 |
| Principal caution | A prosecution-team listing does not identify the personal author of every government position |
| Last checked | October 7, 2026 |
Andrew Rohrbach’s trial examinations show a concrete role in turning records into admissible evidence in the Maxwell prosecution. He questioned institutional witnesses about how documents were created, stored and retrieved, sought admission of exhibits, addressed objections and directed jurors to particular entries. His identifiable work went well beyond his name appearing in a questionnaire or on a list of prosecutors.
The Justice Department’s sentencing announcement identifies Rohrbach with Comey, Moe and Pomerantz as the team responsible for the prosecution. The trial transcript provides the individual detail behind that collective credit. It also records evidentiary limits, unsuccessful government arguments and defense questions that qualified the meaning of the records he introduced.
Jenner & Block’s current biography identifies him as a partner. His Maxwell work should therefore be described as historical federal prosecution work, rather than as proof that he currently holds an assistant U.S. attorney position or controls subsequent Epstein-related releases.
Important Points
- Rohrbach represented the United States in Maxwell’s prosecution. The records do not identify him as an Epstein associate outside that professional role.
- On December 1, 2021, he examined Interlochen finance official Daniel Besselsen about Epstein correspondence and student records, including a letter acknowledging a $200,000 lodge donation.
- On December 2, he examined Paul Kane of the Professional Children’s School. The testimony distinguished an enrollment form naming Epstein as financially responsible from proof that Epstein actually paid tuition.
- On December 8, he examined Janine Gill Velez about a Mar-a-Lago employment record. Her role was to authenticate a record, not to supply firsthand knowledge of events preceding her employment.
- On December 9, he examined FedEx representative Tracy Chapell about invoices and shipment entries. The records did not reveal package contents or establish criminal conduct by every named sender or recipient.
- On December 10, he examined DMV investigator William Brown about identification records used in a disputed identification issue. The exhibits were sealed to protect witness identities.
- His work repeatedly involved the distinction between documents admitted under seal for the jury and redacted versions available publicly. A public redaction does not mean the jury lacked the underlying information.
- The government’s August 2021 objection to disclosure of unnamed alleged coconspirators included Rohrbach in its signature block. Nathan rejected the objection and required defined disclosures to the defense.
- Team filings and electronic filing credits establish participation but do not prove sole authorship. The transcript more clearly identifies his own questions and arguments.
- Rohrbach joined Jenner & Block as a partner in September 2025. The later career change should not be projected backward onto the trial or ignored in a current profile.
Evidence Appearances
| Record | Date | Documented appearance | Meaning and limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maxwell Document 320 | August 18, 2021 | Listed in the government’s collective signature block | Government objection to an exhaustive coconspirator list; not an individual sworn account |
| Document 335, DOJ-OGR-00005040 through 00005042 | September 3, 2021 | Judicial response to the government position | Orders disclosure to defense; not a finding against every listed prosecutor personally |
| Document 488, DOJ-OGR-00007401 through 00007406 | Dated November 18; filed November 22, 2021 | Listed on submission concerning birth certificates | Authentication request; does not itself decide admissibility |
| Trial Document 745 | December 1, 2021 | Direct examination of Besselsen | Institutional records and their foundation, not testimony that the custodian witnessed abuse |
| Trial Document 747 | December 2, 2021 | Kane examination and business-record argument | Admitted application is not proof of an unproduced payment |
| Document 523, DOJ-OGR-00008214 through 00008222 | December 4, 2021 | Government submission on the 900-series exhibits | Proffer of relevance, distinct from the court’s subsequent rulings |
| Trial Document 751 | December 6, 2021 | Clarification concerning testimony about the searched residence | Nathan required relevance to the historical period at issue |
| Trial Document 755 | December 8, 2021 | Gill Velez examination | Employment-record authentication with limits established on cross-examination |
| Trial Document 757 | December 9, 2021 | Chapell examination; GX-801, GX-802 and GX-803 | Courier records, with distinct sealed and public versions |
| Trial Document 759 | December 10, 2021 | Brown examination; GX-21 and GX-22 | Identification records admitted under seal; no basis to reveal protected identities |
| Second Circuit opinion, No. 22-1426 | Argued March 12; decided September 17, 2024 | Names Rohrbach as counsel for the United States, with colleagues on the brief | Direct evidence of appellate participation; the holdings are the court’s |
| DOJ sentencing announcement | June 28, 2022 | Identifies the four prosecution attorneys | Official team credit does not establish each person’s contribution to every task |
| Jenner & Block joining announcement | September 30, 2025 | Announces private-practice partnership | Subsequent career information, separate from Maxwell’s criminal case |
Career Context and Current Position
Jenner & Block’s September 2025 announcement describes Rohrbach as a former co-chief of SDNY’s General Crimes Unit and an assistant U.S. attorney who worked in its Public Corruption Unit. It also identifies earlier service in the White House Counsel’s Office and the Justice Department Civil Division’s Appellate Staff. His current firm profile lists a New York partnership and a practice involving investigations, defense and litigation.
This background helps place his evidence and courtroom work in context. It should not substitute for case-specific proof. A firm’s description of experience is a first-party professional account; the actual Maxwell transcript is the source for which witnesses he examined and what arguments he made.
The distinction also prevents a misleading present tense. Rohrbach’s name remains on historical filings and some court databases’ counsel lists. Those entries describe the case record and may persist after a lawyer leaves government. They do not override the verified September 2025 move or establish responsibility for a filing made by a later SDNY administration.
The Disclosure Dispute Before Trial
The August 18, 2021 letter, Document 320, clarified that the government objected to providing an exhaustive list of unnamed alleged coconspirators. It argued that the indictment, discovery, witness material and advance exhibit disclosures were sufficient to avoid unfair surprise. It also said that, at that time, prosecutors intended to introduce coconspirator statements from only two individuals specified in the indictment, while reserving the possibility of changing that position during preparation.
Rohrbach appears in the collective signature block with the other prosecutors. The letter is evidence of the government’s position and his participation on the team. It is not a signed personal declaration by Rohrbach, a complete list of suspects in the wider Epstein investigation, or proof that every person mentioned in discovery was considered a coconspirator.
Judge Nathan’s September 3 order rejected the government’s objection. The court found it untimely and also found the justifications unpersuasive. It required disclosure to the defense of unnamed alleged coconspirators in the charged conspiracies whom the government intended to mention at trial, along with the statements it intended to offer by the specified deadline.
The outcome is important because the government did not prevail on the question. It is also narrower than a public release order for every Epstein-related name. Disclosure to defense counsel in a pending criminal prosecution, publication for the general public and adjudication of another person’s guilt are different acts. The order should not be converted into a ruling that everyone on an unspecified list committed a crime.
Authentication Before the Jury Heard the Evidence
Document 488, dated November 18 and filed November 22, 2021, sought a determination that certified birth records were self-authenticating. It listed Rohrbach with Comey, Moe and Pomerantz. The government argued that certification under the evidence rules would avoid the need to call custodians from several state agencies merely to authenticate records.
Age was an essential component of the charged offenses and the historical narrative. The filing therefore addressed a practical evidentiary task, rather than an incidental administrative detail. It also proposed redactions to protect victims and third parties and referred to the court’s pseudonym orders.
The motion itself did not prove what every record said or finally determine admissibility. It demonstrates the team’s effort to establish documentary foundations before trial. No birth date, certificate number, private address or protected name needs to be reproduced to explain that role.
Interlochen: Daniel Besselsen’s Examination
On December 1, 2021, Rohrbach directly examined Daniel Besselsen, then Interlochen’s assistant vice president of finance. Besselsen explained how the institution maintained donor correspondence and student files and how he had retrieved the records presented in court. This foundation mattered because the exhibits concerned events long before the trial.
Rohrbach introduced Government Exhibit 741, an eight-page set of correspondence from Epstein’s donor file. The testimony identified a February 9, 1994 letter thanking Epstein for a $200,000 contribution for a scholarship lodge. Other correspondence addressed use of the lodge, communications with Maxwell and property stored for Epstein. These were institutional records, rather than merely later recollections about Epstein’s presence at the arts center.
The examination also introduced student application and enrollment-related records, including Government Exhibits 743 and 744, under seal to protect the individual who testified under a pseudonym. The exhibits supplied chronology and context for the government’s account of a meeting at the camp. Besselsen’s ability to retrieve and explain records did not make him an eyewitness to that meeting or to alleged abuse.
Cross-examination supplied further limits. Besselsen did not produce records establishing who paid the relevant student’s expenses. The defense also emphasized that donors could attend performances and use the lodge as part of ordinary institutional arrangements. The jury had to assess how the admitted records fitted the rest of the evidence; a donation alone did not prove a criminal purpose or institutional knowledge of abuse.
This examination is one of the clearest examples of Rohrbach’s individual role. The transcript labels his direct examination and identifies his requests to admit and display particular exhibits. Those passages are more informative than a general statement that he was among the prosecutors.
School Records: Paul Kane’s Examination
The December 2 transcript identifies Rohrbach’s examination of Paul Kane, finance director at the Professional Children’s School. Kane described permanent student files, how they were kept and the distinction between records retained indefinitely and materials ordinarily removed after a number of years.
The government offered an enrollment application, Government Exhibit 761. The defense challenged the handwritten information supplied by people outside the school, arguing that storage in a business file did not automatically establish the truth of every statement on the form. Rohrbach elicited further testimony that the school reviewed and relied on application information in admissions decisions, then argued for admission as a business record. Nathan overruled the objection and admitted the exhibit under seal.
The application named Epstein as financially responsible for the student’s attendance. That fact had a clear evidentiary limit. On cross-examination, Kane acknowledged he did not know whether Epstein actually paid and had not located the relevant payment records. Rohrbach’s redirect established that financial records were kept separately from the student file and that no payment records identifying a payer had been found.
A careful account must retain both propositions: the contemporaneous application contained Epstein’s name in a financial-responsibility field, and the witness did not establish actual payment. Admission as a business record did not remove every uncertainty about the underlying transaction. The exchange also illustrates how cross-examination can narrow an inference without necessarily excluding the document itself.
The Mar-a-Lago Employment Record
On December 8, Rohrbach called Janine Gill Velez, human resources director for Florida Properties Management, the management company for the Mar-a-Lago Club. She described the creation and retention of personnel action notices and authenticated a record for Sky Roberts.
The government offered the notice as Government Exhibit 823 and a redacted public version as 823-R. The witness read an April 11, 2000 hire date. Rohrbach then directed jurors to a related exhibit already in evidence. The examination used the employment record as one part of the government’s chronology and documentary corroboration.
The defense established that Gill Velez began working there around 2007 and had no personal knowledge of how the 2000 notice was completed. Her knowledge came from the record and the business’s recordkeeping practices. Those admissions limit her role to authentication and explanation of an institutional record.
The evidence does not establish that everyone associated with the club knew of abuse, nor does it turn the personnel notice into an eyewitness account of any recruitment. Its value in Rohrbach’s profile is that it shows him presenting and linking a specific dated business record while managing the difference between the jury’s evidence and the public redacted version.
FedEx Invoices: Tracy Chapell’s Examination
The December 9 transcript records Rohrbach’s direct examination of Tracy Chapell, a FedEx senior paralegal whose duties included responding to subpoenas and producing company records. She explained how package scans and delivery events contributed to the creation of billing invoices and how those invoices were retained in the ordinary course of business.
Through Chapell, Rohrbach offered Government Exhibits 801, 802 and 803 under seal and the corresponding public versions 801-R, 802-R and 803-R. Christian Everdell did not object to their admission. Nathan expressly admitted the redacted versions as public exhibits, while the complete versions were available to the jury under the protective arrangements.
The examination focused on shipments in late 2002 from Epstein’s New York office to a Florida recipient identified by first name. Rohrbach connected the shipment entries to another admitted record concerning the recipient’s age. The questions also addressed variant spellings of the recipient’s first name and the repeated delivery address. The court record should be read without reproducing the protected address or using spelling differences to speculate about another person.
An invoice establishes a shipment entry and its associated administrative information. It does not identify what was inside the package, prove that the named recipient personally accepted it or establish that every sender field reflects the person who packed the item. The defense’s cross-examination explored the scope and dates of the invoice material. These limitations remain necessary even though the invoices were admitted and used to corroborate contact.
The distinction between authentic records and the inferences drawn from them is central to this part of the prosecution. Rohrbach established a documentary connection that the jury could compare with other testimony. The shipment evidence did not, standing alone, prove the sexual offense charged against Maxwell.
Identification Records: William Brown’s Examination
On December 10, Rohrbach directly examined William Brown, a supervisor and investigator with the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. Brown explained the agency’s identity-verification process, its database and the creation of photographs used in identification records.
The examination supported admission of Government Exhibits 21 and 22 under seal. Rohrbach directed the jury to compare one of the newly admitted records with a defense exhibit already in evidence. The resulting testimony concerned a disputed identification and chronology issue raised during trial.
The court’s confidentiality instructions are part of the substance of this record. The lawyer repeatedly asked the witness not to say names, and the judge explained that sealing protected witnesses testifying under pseudonyms. A secondary account should not undo those precautions by reconstructing a name from a date, photograph or other identifier.
The records established what the DMV recorded and when it created an identification document. They did not make Brown an eyewitness to the underlying encounters being disputed. As with the other custodians, the legal significance came from combining an authenticated record with the other evidence and the judge’s instructions.
Photographs, Historical Relevance and Judicial Limits
The government’s December 4 submission, Document 523, argued for admission of exhibits from the search of Epstein’s New York residence. It maintained that features of a room and its surroundings corroborated Jane’s description, while recognizing the problem that the search took place long after the charged events. Rohrbach was included in the government’s signature block and is identified in the docket as the submitting attorney.
The government distinguished relatively fixed features from movable objects and argued that the evidence cleared the relevance threshold. That was a prosecution argument. It did not establish that every object visible during the later search had been there during the earlier period or that every proposed exhibit was admitted.
The December 6 transcript records Rohrbach seeking clarification about whether the agent who conducted the search could testify about the same matters. Everdell objected, and Nathan explained that the same relevance problem applied: the evidence had to connect to the relevant historical period. Rohrbach accepted the clarification.
This episode is useful because it shows the limit of prosecution control over evidence. The government could offer a theory and identify proposed corroboration; the judge decided whether the foundation and relevance were sufficient. The exchange should not be described as misconduct merely because the government lost an evidentiary point, nor should the rejected proposal be presented as evidence the jury necessarily considered.
Reading the Prosecution Record Accurately
Several recurring distinctions matter when evaluating Rohrbach’s file appearances:
- A counsel list identifies a professional role; a transcript heading identifies who actually conducted an examination.
- An electronic filing credit identifies who submitted a document; it does not by itself prove sole authorship of a team position.
- A custodian authenticates records through knowledge of recordkeeping; the custodian may have no personal knowledge of the older events recorded.
- A document’s admissibility does not settle every inference about it. The defense can test accuracy, completeness, source and relevance after admission.
- A document admitted under seal may have been available to the jury even though the public version omits protected information.
- An unsuccessful prosecution request and a later court order should both be included when describing a disputed evidentiary issue.
These principles are particularly important in a case where released collections contain large numbers of repeated filings, scanned pages and automated extractions. A raw name count cannot distinguish a substantial examination from a copied counsel list. Nor can it reliably measure responsibility for a prosecution decision.
Rohrbach’s record supports a substantial and specific role in documentary proof. It does not support treating him as the sole architect of the case, the examiner of every survivor, or the official responsible for all later Epstein disclosure policies.
Verdict, Appellate Advocacy and Subsequent Proceedings
The government’s sentencing announcement records Maxwell’s 20-year sentence on June 28, 2022 and credits the trial team. The December 29, 2021 verdict consisted of five guilty findings and one acquittal. Two overlapping conspiracy counts were later treated as multiplicitous, leaving a sentencing judgment on three counts. The severed perjury counts were dismissed without a separate trial.
The appellate opinion’s counsel block identifies Rohrbach as counsel for the United States, with Comey, Moe, Pomerantz and Won S. Shin on the brief. The opinion records argument on March 12, 2024. This directly documents an appellate role after the trial, rather than merely leaving his name on an old district-court appearance list. The government’s appellate advocacy must still be separated from the panel’s independent holdings.
The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment on September 17, 2024, including rulings challenged concerning the Florida agreement, the juror inquiry and a jury note. A case outcome should be attributed to the relevant court, rather than described as a prosecutor’s factual finding.
The August 25, 2026 decision in Maxwell’s Section 2255 proceeding denied collateral relief and recorded the Supreme Court’s earlier denial of certiorari. That later opinion updates the case status. It is not evidence that Rohrbach, who had joined private practice in 2025, personally handled the collateral litigation.
The enduring importance of his Maxwell work lies in the trial record: establishing foundations, connecting dated records with testimony, defending the admission of exhibits and dealing with evidentiary limits in open court.
Chronology
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 18, 2021 | Government letter objects to exhaustive coconspirator list; Rohrbach listed with prosecution team |
| September 3, 2021 | Nathan orders specified disclosures to the defense |
| November 18 and 22, 2021 | Birth-certificate authentication letter dated and filed |
| December 1, 2021 | Rohrbach examines Interlochen’s Daniel Besselsen |
| December 2, 2021 | Rohrbach examines Paul Kane and argues business-record admission |
| December 4 and 6, 2021 | Government photograph submission followed by courtroom clarification of historical-relevance limits |
| December 8, 2021 | Rohrbach examines Janine Gill Velez |
| December 9, 2021 | Rohrbach examines FedEx representative Tracy Chapell |
| December 10, 2021 | Rohrbach examines DMV investigator William Brown |
| December 29, 2021 | Jury returns five guilty verdicts and one acquittal |
| June 28, 2022 | Maxwell sentenced to 20 years |
| March 12, 2024 | Appeal argued; published opinion identifies Rohrbach as counsel for the United States |
| September 17, 2024 | Second Circuit affirms judgment |
| September 30, 2025 | Jenner & Block announces Rohrbach’s arrival as partner |
| August 25, 2026 | Maxwell’s Section 2255 petition denied |
Related Articles
Source List
- Jenner & Block’s live Rohrbach biography and September 30, 2025 joining announcement: Current role and dated professional background.
- Document 320, August 18, 2021 portion: Collective government position on disclosure. The archive page also contains a differently dated record; the cited portion is identified by its August 18 court caption and DOJ-OGR-00004994 through 00004997.
- Document 335: September 3 disclosure order.
- Document 488: Certified birth-record authentication motion.
- Trial Document 745, volume 3: December 1 testimony, including Besselsen examination at transcript page 653.
- Trial Document 747, volume 4: December 2 Kane examination, transcript pages 684 through 698; readable transcription.
- Document 523: December 4 government exhibit submission.
- Trial Document 751, volume 6: December 6 relevance clarification, transcript pages 1292 and 1293.
- Trial Document 755, volume 8: December 8 Gill Velez examination, transcript pages 1732 through 1738; readable transcription.
- Trial Document 757, volume 9: December 9 Chapell examination, transcript pages 1993 onward; readable transcription.
- Trial Document 759, volume 10: December 10 Brown examination, transcript pages 2042 through 2048.
- DOJ sentencing announcement: Sentence and prosecution-team credit.
- September 17, 2024 Second Circuit opinion: Direct appeal.
- August 25, 2026 opinion, No. 25-cv-10468, Document 10: Collateral-review disposition.