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-00017845.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Matt. Matt describes his former girlfriend, Jane, and her 'brutal' relationship with her mother. He recounts witnessing an event around 2011 where Jane confronted her mother about Jeffrey Epstein, which prompts an objection from an attorney, Ms. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00017844.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Matt. Matt testifies about conversations he had with a woman named Jane regarding her interactions with Jeffrey Epstein. He describes Jane's demeanor during these conversations as 'Ashamed, embarrassed, horrified,' but confirms that she did not provide specific details about what happened.
DOJ-OGR-00017843.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness. The witness testifies about conversations with a person named 'Jane' that took place around 2009, in which Jane revealed that the presence of another woman at Jeffrey Epstein's house made her feel more comfortable. The transcript includes a sustained objection by an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, and instructions from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017842.jpg
This document is a page of a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Matt. The witness testifies about conversations he had with a person named Jane, who allegedly told him that her involvement with Jeffrey Epstein began when she was 14 years old after meeting him at a camp.
DOJ-OGR-00017841.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Matt. Matt testifies about conversations with a woman referred to as 'Jane,' specifically asking her if she was involved with Jeffrey Epstein for money. The testimony reveals that Jane admitted she had to do things with Epstein she didn't want to do, noting 'it wasn't free,' and the prosecution introduces the term 'massage' into the line of questioning over a defense objection.
DOJ-OGR-00017840.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Matt by an attorney, Ms. Moe. The questioning focuses on what a person named Jane told the witness about receiving financial help from Jeffrey Epstein. A key part of the witness's testimony is objected to by opposing counsel, Ms. Sternheim, and the objection is sustained by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017836.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between Ms. Sternheim and the Court regarding the testimony of a witness about a woman he was in a relationship with. The Court rules to limit the testimony, allowing only topics from cross-examination that serve to attack the woman's credibility.
DOJ-OGR-00017835.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, and the judge regarding an evidentiary objection. The core of the debate is whether testimony supporting a witness's claims about her difficult home life is admissible after her credibility on that very topic was attacked by Ms. Sternheim's side.
DOJ-OGR-00017834.jpg
A sidebar transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Court discuss the admissibility of testimony from a witness named Matt, specifically regarding whether a female accuser had revealed abuse allegations to him prior to meeting with the government. The Judge challenges the defense's objection, noting they had previously attacked the accuser's credibility regarding her financial background (living in a pool house, losing her home), making this testimony relevant as a 'prior consistent statement.'
DOJ-OGR-00017833.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. A witness named Matt is being questioned about his past dating relationship with a woman named Jane and what she told him about her difficult home life as a child. The testimony is interrupted by a hearsay objection from an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, which is then argued by another attorney, Ms. Moe, before the judge makes a preliminary ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00017829.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. The prosecution, represented by Ms. Moe, successfully moves to enter Government Exhibit 17 into evidence under seal to protect the identity of a witness, Matt, who is testifying under a pseudonym. After the jury is directed to view the exhibit, Ms. Moe begins her direct examination of the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00017824.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge and several attorneys (Ms. Moe, Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Rohrbach) regarding trial procedures. Key topics include clarifying testimony about Ms. Maxwell, the status of contacts with a witness named 'Jane', and confirming an agreement that victim-witnesses will not observe the trial until after both the prosecution and defense have rested their cases.
DOJ-OGR-00017821.jpg
This court transcript page from August 10, 2022, documents a legal argument between attorney Ms. Sternheim and the judge during the redirect examination of a witness named Jane. The core of the dispute is whether the use of the term 'girls' versus 'women' is a significant distinction, with Ms. Sternheim arguing that 'girls' improperly implies the subjects are minors, which supports the government's theory of the case in a way that is inconsistent with the witness's testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00017819.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and two attorneys, Ms. Sternheim and Ms. Moe, during a recess. Ms. Sternheim raises a potential issue with the government's next witness, Matt, noting that his prior statements regarding a conversation with another individual, Jane, do not fully align with the direct examination. This suggests a potential challenge to the witness's credibility or the consistency of his testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00017818.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022. After a witness named Jane is excused, the court calls for a break. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, then raises a procedural issue, requesting a proffer from the government regarding the testimony of the next witness, Matt, to ensure it complies with evidence rules and avoids improper statements.
DOJ-OGR-00017775.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a procedural discussion between the judge and several attorneys (Moe, Sternheim, Menninger). The conversation focuses on the next witness, identified as Matt, and addresses how potential evidentiary issues, such as the introduction of prior consistent statements, will be handled. An attorney also requests permission to ask a leading question under Rule 611(c).
DOJ-OGR-00017669.jpg
This document is page 466 of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a brief moment in open court during the cross-examination of a witness named Jane, where a speaker identified as Ms. Sternheim says the single word, "Vigorously." The transcript was prepared by Southern District Reporters, P.C.
DOJ-OGR-00014881.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. The court discusses upcoming trial dates with counsel, proposing a final pretrial conference for November 23rd and discussing the start of voir dire on November 16th. Counsel Ms. Pomerantz (for the government) and Ms. Sternheim agree to the proposals, with Ms. Sternheim asking for a specific start time for the voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00014880.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge sets a firm hearing date for November 15th to discuss jury questionnaires and motions in limine, specifically mentioning defense motions regarding co-conspirator statements, 'alleged victim 3', and Exhibit 52. The court also plans to address government motions seeking to exclude testimony from experts Dr. Loftus and Dr. Dietz.
DOJ-OGR-00014879.jpg
This document is page 3 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. The Judge discusses the necessity of sealing portions of the proceedings related to Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (sexual behavior evidence) and outlines the schedule for addressing 'Daubert' issues first. The Judge also notes a high response rate for jury summons, with 565 prospective jurors having filled out questionnaires in two days.
DOJ-OGR-00014847.jpg
This court transcript from August 22, 2022, details a discussion about finalizing a judgment in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court informs counsel of its decision to set the end date of the criminal conspiracy as July 2004, noting this differs from the government's previous position. The government's counsel, Ms. Moe, states she will review the exhibits and will only file a written objection if the date conflicts with the sentencing transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00014846.jpg
This court transcript page, filed on August 22, 2022, documents a hearing for Ms. Maxwell. Her counsel, Ms. Sternheim, requests she be designated to the women's prison facility in Danbury and enrolled in the Female Integrated Treatment (FIT) program; the court agrees to recommend this to the Bureau of Prisons. Subsequently, the government's counsel, Ms. Moe, moves to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight and any underlying indictments, a motion which the court grants.
DOJ-OGR-00014845.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge (THE COURT) and an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, regarding her client Ms. Maxwell's sentence. Ms. Sternheim argues that Ms. Maxwell cannot pay a fine because a bequest she was to receive is 'unactualized,' but the Court counters that other assets exist and proceeds to formally impose the sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00014842.jpg
This document is a page from the sentencing transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 22, 2022. The presiding judge rejects Maxwell's complaints about her treatment at the MDC, noting she had ample resources for legal preparation. The judge criticizes Maxwell for a pattern of dishonesty regarding finances and deflection of blame, noting that while she acknowledged the victims' suffering, she failed to accept personal responsibility.
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.
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.
Defense's argument against the credibility of accusers an...
Ms. Sternheim argues that the government's case lacks substantive evidence and relies on the thin, uncorroborated stories of four accusers. She suggests the accusers' testimonies are unreliable, having been influenced by lawyers, media, and the prospect of large financial rewards from the Epstein fund.
Relevance objection
Ms. Sternheim objects to evidence based on relevance and foundation as a business record.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity