Ms. Sternheim
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Professor Loftus
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Elizabeth Loftus
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mulligan
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Elizabeth Loftus
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Loftus
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Opposing counsel |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Co counsel implied |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jury
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ghislaine
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Lundberg
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Representation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Co counsel defense |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
THE WITNESS (Loftus)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Defense counsel implied |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Loftus
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Hamilton
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Court proceeding regarding trial schedule, closing arguments, and jury deliberation timing relati... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court Recess pending verdict | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court proceeding sidebar or argument regarding courtroom logistics and COVID protocols. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Opening statement by Ms. Sternheim defending Ghislaine Maxwell | Open Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding three missing jurors who are stuck on the security line or unaccounted for o... | 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 | Jury Selection (Voir Dire) for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness 'Kate' | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Reading of Jury Note regarding Count Four | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Janine Gill Velez | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Reading of Jury Note | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness 'Kate' regarding exhibits 3513-014. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding jury deliberation schedule and closing arguments | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing where the judge discusses factors for punishment. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court proceedings discussing jury instructions and a question from the jury regarding Count Four. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | Discussion of the trial schedule. The defense case is set to begin on the 16th. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Closing arguments are anticipated for the 20th or 21st. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Witness Kate is questioned by Ms. Pomerantz about a visit to Maxwell's house and is shown Governm... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | A court hearing to discuss the schedule for jury deliberations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court examination | Cross-examination of DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN by Ms. Sternheim, starting on page 2242. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Future court hearing | The court scheduled the next session for the 23rd of the month. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | An upcoming trial that Ms. Sternheim is scheduled to start on the 16th of the month. | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Examination of witness KATE, including direct, cross, redirect, and recross. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The judge discusses jury deliberation scheduling with counsel, sends a note to the jury, takes a ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Court examination | Cross-examination of witness DANIEL ALAN BESSELSEN by Ms. Sternheim. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00011736.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the conclusion of an address by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, who argues that Ghislaine Maxwell should be found not guilty and distinguishes her from Jeffrey Epstein. The page concludes with the Judge (The Court) ordering a 10-minute break before the government calls its first witness, indicating this is likely the end of opening statements.
DOJ-OGR-00011735.jpg
This document is page 83 (filed page 70) of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), featuring the opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim. She argues that the government's case relies on 'stitching together' the stories of four accusers which cannot stand on their own. Sternheim urges the jury to question the accusers' credibility, suggesting their testimony is influenced by media, lawyers, and financial payouts from the 'Epstein fund.'
DOJ-OGR-00011730.jpg
This document is a court transcript of an opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim regarding a witness named 'Kate'. The text characterizes Kate as an ambitious former actress and model who maintained a decade-long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, including sending him emails and photos while he was incarcerated. The defense argues Kate was above the age of consent in all relevant jurisdictions (UK, NY, FL) and implies her testimony may be unreliable due to admitted drug use.
DOJ-OGR-00011729.jpg
This document is a court transcript of an opening statement by an attorney, Ms. Sternheim. She attempts to discredit a witness named Annie by highlighting inconsistencies in her behavior, such as not believing she was a victim until later and keeping boots allegedly bought by Epstein for 25 years. Sternheim also points to a $1.5 million settlement Annie received as a potential motive for her testimony, and argues the events in New Mexico are not relevant to the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00011728.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, containing part of an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim. The statement describes a young woman named Annie who, at age 16, met Jeffrey Epstein in New York and later traveled to Santa Fe, where she met Ghislaine for the only time. The speaker asserts that nothing criminal occurred during the Santa Fe trip and that Annie was above the age of consent in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00011727.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim, likely a defense attorney. Sternheim argues that a key witness is an unreliable, professional actress who only implicated "Ghislaine" after Epstein's death in order to receive a $5 million payment from the Epstein victim's fund. The attorney urges the jury to be skeptical of the upcoming testimony, highlighting alleged financial motivations and inconsistencies.
DOJ-OGR-00011726.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Ghislaine Maxwell trial) containing the opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim. The text details the background of a witness referred to as 'Jane,' describing her artistic upbringing, attendance at the Epstein-sponsored Interlochen program, and visits to Epstein's Palm Beach home where 'nothing amiss happened.' It notes that Jane accepted flights paid for by Epstein but initially refused involvement in the criminal case prior to his 2019 arrest, only changing her mind after his death.
DOJ-OGR-00011725.jpg
This document is page 60 of a court transcript (Opening Statement by Ms. Sternheim) filed on August 10, 2022, likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense argues that unlike the 9/11 fund, the Epstein compensation fund claims were based on 'unreliable' memories. The text focuses on an accuser named 'Jane,' describing Epstein as a 'benefactor' who paid for her professional schooling, vocal lessons, and a Wall Street apartment where she lived with her family.
DOJ-OGR-00011724.jpg
This document is page 59 of a court transcript (filed 08/10/22) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that the government is applying 'hindsight bias' to lawful conduct like shopping or movies, relabeling it as 'grooming.' She further argues that prosecution witnesses are financially motivated, claiming they receive money from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund and enhance their payouts by cooperating with the government.
DOJ-OGR-00011723.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing legal arguments about privileged communications. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues that answers to interrogatories and a complaint are not privileged, while another attorney, Ms. Comey, begins to dispute the accuracy of a deposition. The judge rules that arguments about a witness's story changing over time due to the involvement of civil lawyers are matters to be presented to a jury.
DOJ-OGR-00017428.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski. The excerpt captures a brief exchange between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Sternheim about the estimated remaining time for the proceeding. The judge also informs Ms. Sternheim that they have requested the courtroom temperature be raised for her comfort.
DOJ-OGR-00017427.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, during a break in proceedings where the jury and witness are not present. The dialogue covers procedural and environmental matters, including a counsel's request to raise the courtroom temperature and the judge asking another counsel for a time estimate for questioning before announcing a 10-minute recess.
DOJ-OGR-00017361.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts the moment the judge thanks and discharges the jury following the verdict. Defense counsel Ms. Sternheim requests the court wait on the presentence report and explicitly asks for a court order to ensure Ms. Maxwell receives a COVID-19 booster shot.
DOJ-OGR-00017355.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In it, the judge confirms the jury's deliberation schedule, which includes holidays, and reads a note from the jury requesting the transcripts of expert witness Elizabeth Loftus. Counsel then raises an issue regarding the transcript of Cimberly Espinosa.
DOJ-OGR-00014479.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The judge denies a request for a mistrial concerning evidence about phone numbers, stating the admission was for a limited purpose. The court then calls for a 20-minute luncheon recess, after which a technical difficulty with a non-working screen is reported.
DOJ-OGR-00014475.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. After the jury is dismissed for lunch, an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, raises an objection to the judge concerning a statement made by opposing counsel, Ms. Moe. Ms. Sternheim argues that Ms. Moe's assertion during closing arguments—that a massage table originating from California affects interstate commerce—is legally inaccurate and unsupported by evidence presented in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00014407.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures the beginning of the closing arguments phase, where the Judge outlines the schedule: Ms. Moe will present for the government, followed by a lunch break, and then Ms. Menninger will present for the defense. The page concludes with the Judge introducing Ms. Moe to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00014363.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion about jury instructions. Counsel argues that the jury should be instructed not to convict based solely on the testimony of a witness named Kate, a point with which the Court agrees. Following a brief request between counsel members, the judge calls for a 10-minute recess.
DOJ-OGR-00017607.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It records a conversation between the judge, a government attorney (Ms. Moe), and another attorney (Ms. Sternheim) concerning the testimony of an upcoming witness. The judge acknowledges their points and adjourns the court until 8:45 a.m. on December 1, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00017602.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. Prosecutors are arguing to admit the testimony of a witness named 'Matt,' who was in a relationship with a victim named 'Jane' starting in 2007. Matt is expected to testify that Jane told him her family struggled financially during her childhood and mentioned an 'uncle' who paid for things, implying a cover story for abuse or grooming.
DOJ-OGR-00011722.jpg
A transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Judge that they should be allowed to suggest witnesses were manipulated by civil attorneys, citing a witness named 'Carolyn' whose detailed 2008 legal filings and depositions did not mention Ms. Maxwell, implying her involvement was fabricated later. The Court overrules the objection to this line of argumentation at the opening stage but asks for evidence that attorneys explicitly told witnesses what to say.
DOJ-OGR-00011720.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) where attorney Mr. Pagliuca discusses the admissibility of evidence regarding communications between witnesses' lawyers and the government. Specifically, Pagliuca mentions an email from attorney Mr. Scarola to the government suggesting ten topics for an interview with a woman named Carolyn. The discussion centers on whether these communications (proffers and emails) are privileged and how they will be introduced without calling the lawyers as witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00011719.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between Ms. Sternheim and the Judge. Ms. Sternheim argues that lawyers who attended proffer sessions with the government can be considered witnesses, but the Judge denies this, stating that such an action would have required a specific briefing that was never submitted. The core issue is the admissibility of testimony from these lawyers during the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011718.jpg
This is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a sidebar conference during a trial. The defense counsel, Ms. Sternheim, claims in her opening statement that witnesses' memories were manipulated by their civil lawyers, prompting an objection from the prosecution, Ms. Comey and Ms. Moe. Ms. Moe argues to the judge that introducing evidence about lawyer-client conversations is inappropriate and that the issue of subpoenaing these lawyers had already been raised.
DOJ-OGR-00011717.jpg
This document is page 52 of a court transcript (Document 741, filed Aug 10, 2022) featuring the opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Sternheim argues there is a lack of documentation or eyewitnesses to corroborate the government's charges. She characterizes Jeffrey Epstein as a wealthy, mysterious 'manipulator' comparable to James Bond, who lived a compartmentalized life with specific eccentricities, and alleges that accusers are motivated by financial gain ('shaking the money tree').
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'.
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.
Scope of witness testimony
MS. STERNHEIM and THE COURT discuss the allowable scope of a witness's testimony. The Court rules to limit the testimony to issues from cross-examination that pertain to attacking the credibility of an unnamed woman.
Witness's memory and knowledge of media coverage
Ms. Sternheim questions Mr. Mulligan about his ability to recall events from over 25 years ago, his conversations with Ms. Farmer, and his awareness of media and documentaries related to the case and Ms. Farmer.
Courtroom Temperature
Ms. Sternheim asks the Judge if the temperature can be raised because it is very cold. The Court responds that they are sweating but will get it raised.
Description of Epstein's private jets and relationship wi...
Ms. Sternheim describes Epstein's private jets as a form of high-style commuting for a wide array of people, including friends, celebrities, and politicians. She also outlines the evolution of Ghislaine's relationship with Epstein, from a companion to solely an employee, and states the case will center on four women.
Jury Scheduling
Discussion regarding jury deliberation schedule over holidays and COVID-19 protocols.
Admissibility of insurance form content
Discussion regarding hearsay, the Lieberman case, and verification of employee information.
Relevance of Mr. Alessi's testimony
Argument regarding inferences drawn from employment status versus physical presence of a child in 2001.
Defendant's decision to testify
Judge confirms with attorney Sternheim that she has advised her client regarding the right to testify.
Format Inquiry
Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory to the Court.
Witness Schedule
Confirming the defense will not call Mr. Hamilton.
Relevance objection
Ms. Sternheim objects to evidence based on relevance and foundation as a business record.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity