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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court hearing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) where a witness, Mr. Parkinson, is excused, followed by ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion in court to determine the schedule and deadlines for submitting legal papers. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | The conclusion of a court hearing where the judge addressed rising COVID incidents at a facility ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Attorneys are arguing before a judge about the admissibility of a witness's prior statements and ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court discussion regarding the admissibility of a witness's testimony. Ms. Sternheim argues tha... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the judge and attorneys after the jury has left for the day. Topics included... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of a witness named Kate regarding conversations she had with Maxwell about Eps... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding the procedures for upcoming jury deliberations. | courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A portion of a trial where attorney Mr. Rohrbach directs the jury's attention to Government Exhib... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of witness Matt regarding his past relationship with Jane and her home life, i... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion to determine the procedure for alternating peremptory strikes during jury selection. | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Trial | An opening statement by Ms. Sternheim in a court trial where she argues that the memories of four... | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Direct testimony of witness Matt in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where a judge denies a request for a mistrial regarding the admission of evidence... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court recess | The court takes a luncheon recess, planned to last 20 minutes. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | The court announces a recess for a one-hour lunch break during a trial. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness named Kate regarding her past acting roles. A procedural issue ari... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Cross-examination of witness Kate regarding her employment status and knowledge of U visa require... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the use of extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness's testim... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A procedural discussion during a trial regarding the timing of an objection to a witness's testim... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court recess | The court announced a 45-minute lunch break. Proceedings were scheduled to resume with opening st... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion about the scheduling of closing arguments, the jury charge, and the handling of exhi... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court between the judge and attorneys for the government and defense regarding pr... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | A witness named Matt is under direct examination, testifying about his conversations with Jane re... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument between Ms. Sternheim and the Court during the redirect examination of a witness... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
DOJ-OGR-00011600.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, capturing a defense attorney's argument during a sentencing hearing. The attorney, Ms. Sternheim, asks the Court for a sentence below the recommended guidelines, arguing the government's request is disproportionate and that the more culpable Jeffrey Epstein would have faced the same sentencing guidelines as her client, Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00011598.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on July 22, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. A victim, Ms. Stein, delivers a powerful impact statement describing how Maxwell's actions affected her for 25 years and calls for Maxwell to be imprisoned. Following the statement, another individual, Ms. Sternheim, addresses the court to speak to the victims.
DOJ-OGR-00011574.jpg
This is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion about the order of statements. Counsel Ms. Moe asks the judge if victims should speak before or after the main parties. The judge clarifies the intended sequence is government, victims, defense counsel, and then Ms. Maxwell, to which all parties present agree before the court takes a luncheon recess.
DOJ-OGR-00011523.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated July 22, 2022, involving Ms. Sternheim (defense) and Ms. Moe (government). The proceedings cover administrative confirmations of filings on ECF and a substantive discussion regarding the government's compliance with the 'Justice For All Act.' Specifically, Ms. Moe confirms that the government has notified six victims, proven at trial to be impacted, about the upcoming sentencing and their right to be heard.
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.
Redirect examination
Asking if testimony would differ if called by the government.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
Exhibit Identification
Exchange regarding identifying exhibit K-8 / 3513-019.
Admissibility of Insurance Records
Argument regarding whether insurance forms constitute business records and what inferences can be drawn regarding Virginia Roberts.
Admissibility of Evidence
Discussion regarding Exhibits 823 (employment notice) and 824 (insurance document) concerning Sky Roberts.
Cross-examination
Questions regarding memory, wearing uniforms, and conversations with Ghislaine.
Proffer of Expert Witness
Sternheim requests that Loftus be recognized as an expert in memory science; Judge agrees subject to prior rulings.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding CV detail and compensation.
Scheduling break
Let's get started. My plan was to break at 3:30.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity