Mark S. Cohen

Snapshot

Introduction

Mark S. Cohen appears in the Epstein record as a lawyer representing Ghislaine Maxwell in her federal criminal case. His July 10, 2020 notice of appearance identifies him by full name and law firm. Signed briefs and a hearing transcript document specific work on bail and pretrial challenges. These records establish a professional relationship with Maxwell; they do not establish that Cohen participated in the conduct prosecuted in the case.

Cohen & Gresser’s professional biography identifies him as a New York lawyer, a firm cofounder and a former Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. Its account of the Maxwell matter says that he handled initial proceedings and served as a strategic adviser to the trial team. That institutional description is narrower than attributing every defense filing or courtroom examination to him.

Key Takeaways

• Cohen personally signed the July 2020 appearance and bail brief. The July 14 hearing transcript records his arguments for Maxwell.
• His signature appears on separate briefs concerning Epstein’s nonprosecution agreement, the statute of limitations and language in the indictment.
• The court rejected the agreement and limitations arguments. It declined to strike the challenged indictment language at that stage, reserving the issue for trial and allowing Maxwell to renew it then.
• Other briefs list Cohen among counsel but bear another lawyer’s signature. A firm name alone is not a personal appearance by every partner.
• Cohen & Gresser later stated that it represented Maxwell through sentencing but did not represent her on appeal. The court granted Cohen and Everdell’s withdrawal in August 2025.

Appearance, Bail and Discovery

Cohen’s notice of appearance, Document 19, is both dated and filed July 10, 2020. He also signed the defense’s bail memorandum, Document 18, PDF page 26, seeking release pending trial. At the July 14 hearing, he argued for Maxwell, including a contention that Epstein’s Florida nonprosecution agreement protected her. Judge Alison J. Nathan ordered Maxwell detained, finding no adequate combination of conditions to address the risk of flight. See Document 93, hearing pages 64 and 86 through 91. The transcript was filed December 10, 2020; that is not the hearing date.

Contemporaneous Reuters reporting carried by Gulf News also identified Cohen’s advocacy at the bail hearing and reported the denial of release. The court transcript supplies the direct record of the arguments and ruling.

The government’s discovery letter EFTA00011267, page 1 is dated February 2, 2021. It names Cohen and Christian Everdell at Cohen & Gresser among the defense recipients. The letter records a production that included the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility report concerning the earlier Epstein investigation, as well as previously produced materials with corrected Bates numbers. The addressee list identifies intended recipients, not whether Cohen personally reviewed every produced item.

Signed Challenges to the Indictment

Three distinct defense memoranda bear Cohen’s signature. Each is dated January 25, 2021 and carries a February 4, 2021 filing stamp. Their arguments should be read alongside the court’s April 16 ruling, rather than treated as accepted findings.

The nonprosecution agreement

In Document 142, signature at PDF page 37, Cohen signed a memorandum arguing that Epstein’s agreement with federal prosecutors in Florida barred Maxwell’s prosecution. The requested relief was dismissal or, alternatively, a hearing and discovery concerning the agreement. This establishes advocacy about the agreement’s asserted effect; it does not establish that Cohen negotiated the original agreement.

Judge Nathan rejected the argument. Her April 16, 2021 opinion, Document 207, pages 2 and 3 held that the agreement did not bind the Southern District of New York and did not cover the charges at issue. The opinion addressed the pending motions concerning the first superseding indictment; it did not dispose of every question raised by the later indictment.

Statute of limitations and preindictment delay

Cohen also signed Document 144, PDF page 24, seeking dismissal of Counts One through Four as untimely under the applicable statutes of limitations. The court rejected that challenge in Document 207, pages 9 through 16.

A separate memorandum, Document 138, PDF page 25, argued that delay before indictment violated due process. That brief bears Jeffrey S. Pagliuca’s signature and lists Cohen among counsel. Its constitutional delay argument is distinct from Cohen’s signed limitations brief. The court rejected the delay challenge in Document 207, pages 17 and 18, on the then existing record, while permitting renewal if the trial record supported the required showing.

Language concerning Accuser-3

In Document 146, PDF pages 1 and 15, Cohen signed the request to strike specified references to Accuser-3 as prejudicial surplusage, or unnecessary allegations, from the indictment. The brief alternatively requested notice and an opportunity to contest the admissibility of proposed evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). It did not constitute a judicial finding that the allegations were false.

The court declined to strike the language at that stage because relevance and prejudice could be assessed more fully in the trial context. It reserved the issue for trial and allowed Maxwell to renew her motion then. See Document 207, pages 26 and 27. That procedural disposition was not a ruling that all disputed evidence would necessarily be admitted.

Civil Depositions and Other Defense Team Filings

The criminal prosecution was separate from Giuffre v. Maxwell, the earlier civil defamation case. A defense memorandum sought suppression of evidence connected with Maxwell’s April and July 2016 civil depositions and dismissal of related perjury counts. Document 140, PDF page 21, is dated January 25, 2021, filed February 4 and signed by Pagliuca; Cohen is listed among counsel. That listing does not show that Cohen conducted the civil depositions or personally presented every suppression argument.

Judge Nathan’s June 25, 2021 opinion, Document 307, page 21 denied the suppression motions and the requested evidentiary hearing. Separately, the perjury counts had been severed from the trial and were later dismissed. They were not the counts on which the December 2021 jury returned guilty verdicts. See the court’s later procedural history, page 3 and footnote 4.

Another filing illustrates why a firm name must not be treated as an individual act. Document 336, PDF page 10, is a subpoena application signed by Laura A. Menninger on March 19, 2021 and publicly filed September 7. Its signature block names Everdell at Cohen & Gresser, not Mark Cohen. The court denied that application without prejudice on August 13, 2021 and later ordered public filing of redacted motion papers. This is defense team context, not a demonstrated Cohen signature or proof that the requested subpoenas were issued.

Trial Role, Withdrawal and Later Case History

Cohen’s firm describes a strategic advisory role at trial. Everdell’s August 1, 2025 declaration, paragraphs 2 and 3, states that Cohen & Gresser represented Maxwell at trial and through her June 28, 2022 sentencing, but did not represent her in appellate proceedings. The firm’s representation does not identify which lawyer conducted each examination or made each argument.

The same declaration says that Maxwell had retained Markus Moss to address the government’s 2025 motion concerning unsealing grand jury transcripts and consented to Cohen & Gresser’s withdrawal. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted Cohen and Everdell’s withdrawal in Document 799 on August 4, 2025. This signed order, rather than the proposed order attached to the motion, establishes the effective court action.

Maxwell’s jury returned guilty verdicts on five of six trial counts on December 29, 2021. After the court granted relief concerning overlapping conspiracy counts, judgment was entered on three counts. She was sentenced on June 28, 2022 to a principal term of 240 months, or twenty years, in prison. See the district court’s procedural history, pages 3 and 6, and the appellate opinion, page 2. These are outcomes in Maxwell’s case, not findings of misconduct by her lawyers.

The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment on September 17, 2024. The Supreme Court’s docket in No. 24-1073 records denial of certiorari on October 6, 2025, a refusal to take the appeal rather than a new merits opinion. On August 25, 2026, the district court denied Maxwell’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, page 67. These later proceedings provide case context; the cited record does not assign their advocacy to Cohen.

Chronology

Evidence Appearances

These are selected original court records and released correspondence, accessed through public archives. PDF page numbers refer to the linked file. A filing’s argument, its signer and the court’s ruling are separate facts.

Related EpsteinWiki Articles

• Ghislaine Maxwell
• Virginia Roberts Giuffre
• Ghislaine Maxwell and the Evidence Record
• How to Read Names in the Epstein Files

Limitations and Open Questions

The reviewed documents establish specific professional acts and counsel listings. They do not provide a complete allocation of work among the defense lawyers, identify the author of every paragraph or establish a personal relationship between Cohen and Epstein. The selected trial material does not support assigning particular witness examinations or closing arguments to Cohen.

There is a small date discrepancy in the record. Everdell’s 2025 declaration, paragraph 2 recalls that notices of appearance were filed July 8, 2020. Cohen’s original notice is dated and stamped July 10. This account uses the original notice for Cohen’s filing date.

Source review was last updated October 18, 2026. It covers selected public court records, released correspondence, Cohen’s institutional biography and contemporaneous reporting. It is not an exhaustive docket or archive search and does not establish that every later avenue of litigation has ended. Public pseudonyms and redactions are preserved; private details and unnecessary descriptions of abuse are omitted.

Conclusion

Cohen’s documented connection is legal representation of Maxwell. The strongest individual evidence consists of his signed appearance, bail submission, hearing advocacy and three signed pretrial memoranda. Reading those records beside the rulings, the firm’s description of his trial role and the withdrawal order gives a more precise account than treating every defense team reference as his personal act.

Questions and Answers

Why does Mark S. Cohen appear in these records?

He represented Maxwell in her federal criminal case. His signed appearance and the briefs identified above document that professional role.

Did Cohen personally sign every defense filing that lists his firm?

No. Documents 138 and 140 list Cohen but are signed by Pagliuca. Document 336 names Everdell at the firm and is signed by Menninger. The individual signature and counsel list must be checked separately.

Was Cohen Maxwell’s appellate lawyer?

Everdell’s 2025 declaration, paragraph 3 says Cohen & Gresser did not represent Maxwell in appellate proceedings. The later rulings are included here as case history, not Cohen’s work.

Do these records establish wrongdoing by Cohen?

The cited records document legal representation, submissions and court proceedings. They do not establish Cohen’s participation in Maxwell’s offenses. Her conviction does not itself support such an inference.

Sources

• Notice of appearance, Document 19. July 10, 2020; one page.
• Bail memorandum, Document 18. July 10, 2020; signature at PDF page 26.
• Hearing transcript, Document 93. July 14, 2020; filed December 10, 2020; pages 64 and 86 through 91.
• Government discovery letter, EFTA00011267. February 2, 2021; page 1.
• Nonprosecution agreement memorandum, Document 142. Dated January 25, filed February 4, 2021; signature at PDF page 37.
• Limitations memorandum, Document 144. Same date and filing date; signature at PDF page 24.
• Surplusage memorandum, Document 146. Same date and filing date; signature at PDF page 15.
• Preindictment delay memorandum, Document 138. Same date and filing date; signature at PDF page 25.
• Suppression memorandum, Document 140. Same date and filing date; signature at PDF page 21.
• Pretrial opinion, Document 207. April 16, 2021; pages 2, 3, 9 through 18, 26 and 27.
• Suppression opinion, Document 307. June 25, 2021; disposition at page 21.
• Subpoena application, Document 336. Dated March 19, filed September 7, 2021; signature at PDF page 10.
• Subpoena opinion, Document 334. August 13, 2021; disposition at page 10.
• Public filing and unsealing order, Document 333. Signed September 2, filed September 3, 2021.
• Christian Everdell declaration, Document 798-1. August 1, 2025; paragraphs 2 through 7.
• Withdrawal order, Document 799. August 4, 2025; one page.
• United States v. Maxwell, No. 22-1426. Second Circuit, September 17, 2024; pages 1 through 3 and disposition.
• Supreme Court docket, No. 24-1073. October 6, 2025 entry denying certiorari.
• Maxwell v. United States, No. 25 Civ. 10468, Document 10. August 25, 2026; procedural history at pages 2, 3 and 6, disposition at page 67.
• Mark S. Cohen, institutional biography. Cohen & Gresser; biography and Trials and Arbitrations section, accessed October 18, 2026.
• Reuters report on Maxwell’s bail denial. Carried by Gulf News, updated July 15, 2020; contemporaneous reporting.