Ms. Sternheim
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
19
Very Strong
|
25 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Co counsel |
13
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Client |
13
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Opposing counsel |
12
Very Strong
|
10 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Opposing counsel |
12
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
14 | |
|
person
Judge
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
116 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Client |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional adversarial |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Loftus
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Opposing counsel |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
GHISLAINE MAXWELL
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Gill Velez
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Co counsel |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Conrad
|
Professional |
7
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-12-01 | Court adjournment | The court session was adjourned to reconvene on December 1, 2021, at 8:45 a.m. | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-04-01 | N/A | Court Hearing | Court (Southern District) | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court testimony | Catherine M. Conrad is called as a witness, granted use immunity after asserting her Fifth Amendm... | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Juror No. 1 (Catherine Conrad). Discussion of her Fifth Amendment rights,... | Southern District Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court session/inquiry | Afternoon session of a court inquiry, addressing matters that developed over the luncheon recess,... | Court | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Meeting | Ms. Conrad met with Ms. Sternheim a total of six times. | N/A | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court hearing | A court hearing to discuss an application to close the courtroom for the testimony of Ms. Conrad,... | courtroom | View |
| 2008-10-22 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding jury questions and scheduling. | Courtroom | View |
| 2008-10-22 | N/A | Conclusion of Defense Opening Statement | Courtroom | View |
| 2008-10-22 | N/A | Procedural discussion during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell regarding witness scheduling and cros... | Courtroom | View |
| 0023-12-01 | N/A | Jury Deliberations | Jury Room | View |
| 0022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing date of the transcript. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 0022-08-10 | N/A | Court Filing | Southern District (implied NY) | View |
| 0022-08-10 | N/A | Sidebar conference during trial where the Government officially rests its case. | Courtroom (Sidebar) | View |
| 0022-08-10 | N/A | Court Hearing regarding Opening Statements | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00016506.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell addresses the Court regarding the first witness, Ms. Espinosa. He confirms an agreement with the government to exclude cross-examination questions regarding Ms. Galindo's involvement as a defendant in a separate civil lawsuit filed by an individual associated with Epstein (though not an accuser in the current criminal case).
DOJ-OGR-00016505.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that a witness must testify via WebEx because they have tested positive for COVID and cannot enter the United States. The Court agrees that unavailability is established and anticipates permitting the remote testimony, instructing counsel to work out the logistics.
DOJ-OGR-00016504.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The discussion involves a Prosecutor (Mr. Rohrbach) and the Judge regarding the logistical handling of a witness who has tested positive for COVID-19. The government indicates they will not contest the witness's unavailability under Rule 15 if a positive test exists.
DOJ-OGR-00016503.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about a witness who has contracted COVID. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, requests that the witness be allowed to testify remotely via WebEx, while the opposing government counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, insists on the need for cross-examination and demands proof of the positive COVID test. The Court intervenes to clarify whether this proof has already been provided in a letter.
DOJ-OGR-00016502.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, generally associated with the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The proceedings cover rulings on the testimony of Dr. Loftus regarding suggestive questioning and Agent Young. The court then addresses a motion to preclude the testimony of a witness named Alexander Hamilton, leading to a joke by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim about Broadway tickets and a counter-quote by the Judge referencing Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78.
DOJ-OGR-00016482.jpg
This document is an index page (Page 266 of 267) from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It lists the examination of four witnesses: William Brown, Annie Farmer, David James Mulligan, and Janice Swain. The index details which attorneys conducted the direct, cross, and redirect examinations for each witness, referencing specific page numbers in the full transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00016479.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Judge regarding the trial schedule, specifically concerns about the jury having enough time to deliberate before the upcoming holiday season (referencing 'the 27th'). The defense argues against rushing the jury, while the Judge admonishes that closing arguments cannot be delayed until after the holiday.
DOJ-OGR-00016478.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves attorneys (Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim) and the Judge discussing the trial schedule, specifically focusing on jury deliberations, avoiding delays, and a charging conference scheduled for the 18th. The Court emphasizes the need for efficiency and being respectful of the jurors' time while preparing for closing arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00016476.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Menninger and Ms. Sternheim, about scheduling the remainder of a trial. They discuss the timeline for the defense case, a charging conference, and closing arguments, which are projected for the 16th through the 21st of an unspecified month. Ms. Sternheim raises a concern about the jury having to deliberate immediately before the Christmas holiday.
DOJ-OGR-00016471.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the public release of evidence. Defense counsel Ms. Menninger urges the judge to compel the government to immediately submit any final redactions for defense exhibits J-8/9 and J-15, citing delays and media interest. Another attorney, Ms. Moe, begins to address the court on the same topic, noting a recent conversation she had with a Ms. Sternheim about the redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00016466.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The Judge schedules a charging conference for 'Saturday the 18th' and ensures Maxwell's presence. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell then raises a concern that potential defense witnesses are requesting to testify anonymously or using pseudonyms due to safety or privacy concerns.
DOJ-OGR-00016452.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a sidebar conference where the Judge confirms that the Government has rested its case and that the Defense (represented by Mr. Everdell and Ms. Sternheim) intends to present a case next. The Judge also schedules the hearing of a Rule 29 motion (motion for acquittal).
DOJ-OGR-00016434.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the end of the testimony of a witness named Mulligan, who speaks briefly about a memorable conversation with someone named Annie regarding New Mexico. After Mulligan is excused, the government's attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, calls the next witness, Janice Swain.
DOJ-OGR-00016433.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of a witness named Mr. Mulligan. The questioning establishes that Mulligan had spoken to The New York Times about the case and that an individual named Annie Farmer attended his recent wedding. The transcript concludes with attorney Ms. Pomerantz beginning her redirect examination by referencing a previous question from defense counsel about Mulligan's conversations with 'Annie'.
DOJ-OGR-00016424.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Mulligan. Mulligan testifies about dating a woman named Annie in high school around the fall/winter of 1996. The testimony focuses on conversations they had regarding a trip Annie took to New Mexico, noting that these discussions often arose when they were becoming physically affectionate.
DOJ-OGR-00016418.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial while the jury is not present. The judge calls for a 10-minute recess after encouraging counsel to confer. Following the recess, a new witness, Mr. Mulligan, is called to the stand to be sworn in.
DOJ-OGR-00016416.jpg
This document is page 200 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a brief procedural exchange between the Court and Ms. Sternheim regarding a scheduled break at 3:30 PM during the redirect examination of witness A. Farmer. The page contains very little dialogue and notes that the proceedings continue on the next page.
DOJ-OGR-00016413.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing the end of witness A. Farmer's testimony. After attorneys Ms. Pomerantz and Ms. Menninger state they have no further questions, the court excuses the witness. Ms. Pomerantz, representing the government, then calls the next witness, David Mulligan, to the stand.
DOJ-OGR-00013287.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim discusses two exhibits (823 and 824) with the Judge. Exhibit 823 concerns the employment start date of Sky Roberts around the year 2000, while Exhibit 824 is an insurance document listing Sky Roberts' dependents, specifically naming his daughter, Virginia Roberts. The defense argues these are not proper business records as the employee Ms. Gill, who might testify to them, did not start employment until 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00013286.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about jury instructions concerning an alleged victim named Kate. The judge clarifies their view on the instruction, avoiding complexities of New Mexico law. An attorney for the government, Ms. Sternheim, then informs the court that their next witness will be Janine Gill, an employee of the Trump organization since 2007, and that they will introduce two government exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00013231.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues that a witness named Carolyn showed inconsistency by amending a prior answer to state she was 'transported via private car provided by Jeffrey Epstein,' which the judge allows into evidence. The page concludes with Ms. Sternheim requesting a recess and prosecutor Ms. Comey questioning the length of the cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00013175.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. He requests permission from the judge to cross-examine a witness, Carolyn, on her extensive psychiatric history, drug abuse, and schizophrenia, arguing that the witness minimized these issues and her own testimony opened the door for this line of questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00013174.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Pagliuca discuss procedural matters with the Judge, including objections to the relevance of upcoming witness testimony and the estimated duration (1-1.5 hours) of Mr. Pagliuca's cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The transcript captures the logistical coordination to ensure the jury is not left waiting.
DOJ-OGR-00013011.jpg
This document is an 'Index of Examination' page from a court transcript, specifically from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the page numbers for the testimony of witnesses Kate, Patrick McHugh, Kelly Maguire, and Kimberly Meder, detailing the attorneys responsible for their direct and cross-examinations. The document also lists numerous government exhibits (series 223R-287R, 18, 109, 702) that were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00013009.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim before a judge. The defense objects to the handling of 'exhibit 309,' a photograph, claiming it impairs their ability to cross-examine a witness. Ms. Moe counters that the defense was already aware of the photo and its identification by a witness named Kate from an interview conducted in September, and thus had the opportunity to address it.
Court proceedings
Ms. Sternheim responds to the Court's questions and begins to address the Court on a matter before being instructed to use the microphone.
Scheduling
Requesting to wait until tomorrow.
Procedural discussion regarding demonstrative evidence
Discussion regarding the use of digital equipment to simulate a whiteboard due to COVID restrictions and whether a photograph of the work should be preserved for the record.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding fund application vetting for fraud.
Admissibility of lawyers as witnesses
A discussion between Ms. Sternheim and the Judge about whether lawyers who attended proffer sessions can be called as witnesses or if their testimony can be referenced.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests a sidebar to discuss matters related to a witness with anonymity status.
Cross-examination of Gill Velez
Ms. Sternheim questions Gill Velez about her employment history with a property management company and her lack of personal knowledge regarding a document dated 2000, as she only started working there in 2007.
Relationship between Ghislaine and Epstein, and Epstein's...
Ms. Sternheim describes Epstein's charisma and his relationship with Ghislaine, which evolved from friendship to her becoming his employee managing his real estate portfolio. She details his various properties and travel habits, and mentions that Epstein spent time with other women without Ghislaine.
Opening Statement (Defense)
Ms. Sternheim begins her opening statement for the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell, by arguing that women are often unfairly blamed for men's actions and that Maxwell is not Jeffrey Epstein, despite the charges relating to his conduct.
Pending redaction issues
Ms. Moe informed the court that she had spoken with Ms. Sternheim that morning about the redaction issues being discussed.
Defense opening statement in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell
The defense lawyer argues that the case is about Epstein's conduct, not Maxwell's, and that the government's case relies on four accusers whose memories are corrupted and motivated by money.
Testimony of next witness, Matt
Ms. Sternheim raises a concern about the upcoming testimony of Matt, requesting that the government provide a proffer to ensure his testimony is compliant with the Federal Rules of Evidence and does not introduce improper statements.
Testimony of next witness, Matt
Ms. Sternheim raises a concern about the upcoming testimony of Matt, requesting that the government provide a proffer to ensure his testimony is compliant with the Federal Rules of Evidence and does not introduce improper statements.
Relevance of a question
Ms. Sternheim argues that the question is relevant because it sheds light on the witness's knowledge of what other accusers are doing.
Cross-examination regarding exhibit 'Defendant's K9'
Ms. Sternheim questions the witness, Kate, about an exhibit marked 'Defendant's K9'. She directs Kate to a specific part of the document to identify her 'true name'.
Evidentiary objection regarding witness credibility
A dialogue between Ms. Sternheim and the Court regarding the legal basis for an objection to testimony. The Court argues that since Ms. Sternheim's side attacked a witness's credibility regarding her upbringing, the opposing side can bring in evidence to support it. The Court presses Ms. Sternheim for the specific rule (e.g., Relevance, 403) underpinning her objection.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests to raise an issue at sidebar with the Judge, and the Judge agrees.
Opening Statement
Ms. Sternheim describes the circumstances of Annie's meetings with Epstein in New York and Ghislaine in Santa Fe when Annie was 16.
Objection to closing argument statement
Ms. Sternheim argues that a statement made by Ms. Moe during closing arguments is incorrect. The statement claimed that a massage table from California affects interstate commerce, which Ms. Sternheim disputes as an inaccurate application of the law.
Preclusion from cross-examination
Ms. Sternheim argues that the government's decision not to use a photograph while a witness was on the stand prevented her from cross-examining the witness about nudity, a topic she considered relevant.
Clarification on questioning a witness
Ms. Sternheim corrected Ms. Pomerantz, stating her intended question was not about the ex-husband but about whether the witness had asked a friend to plant drugs on the father of her child.
Defense's opening statement regarding Jeffrey Epstein.
Ms. Sternheim argues that there is a lack of evidence and no eyewitnesses to support the indictment's charges. She characterizes Epstein as a mysterious, manipulative man who attracted powerful people and suggests his accusers have financially benefited from their claims.
Defense argument regarding burden of proof and presumptio...
Ms. Sternheim argues to the jury that the government has the burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, mentions the presumption of innocence, and contrasts the presence of Ghislaine Maxwell with the absence of Jeffrey Epstein.
Opening statement regarding 'Annie'
Ms. Sternheim describes Annie's meetings with Epstein in New York and Ghislaine in Santa Fe when Annie was 16, asserting that nothing criminal occurred and she was above the age of consent in New Mexico.
Jury Scheduling
Discussion regarding jury deliberation schedule over holidays and COVID-19 protocols.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity