Ms. Sternheim
PersonRelationship Network
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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-00013846.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) involving a dispute over the public release of Defense Exhibits J-8/9 and J-15. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues that the exhibits, admitted into evidence nine days prior, should be made public immediately without further delay from the government regarding redactions. The government attorney, Ms. Moe, notes she has been in contact with co-counsel Ms. Sternheim regarding the pending redaction issues.
DOJ-OGR-00013844.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion about filing deadlines. An attorney for the defense, Mr. Everdell, negotiates with the judge to move up a submission deadline to Sunday, arguing it would make a difference for their case. The judge ultimately sets the deadline for Wednesday and admonishes the attorney for not raising the issue sooner.
DOJ-OGR-00013841.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge schedules a charging conference for 'Saturday the 18th' and ensures Ghislaine Maxwell's presence. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell raises an issue regarding the defense case, stating that potential witnesses are requesting to testify anonymously or under name protection (pseudonyms).
DOJ-OGR-00013827.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a sidebar conference in the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The court confirms that the government has rested its case and verifies that the defense still intends to present a case. The judge outlines instructions for the jury and schedules a hearing for a Rule 29 motion (Motion for Judgment of Acquittal) to take place immediately after the jury is excused.
DOJ-OGR-00013809.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures the end of a witness's, Mr. Mulligan's, testimony where he describes conversations with someone named Annie about New Mexico as 'memorable' and 'emotional.' After Mr. Mulligan is excused, the government calls its next witness, Janice Swain.
DOJ-OGR-00013808.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Ms. Sternheim concludes her questioning of witness Mr. Mulligan, establishing that he spoke to the New York Times to corroborate a story and that Annie Farmer attended his recent wedding. Ms. Pomerantz then begins a redirect examination regarding Mulligan's memory of conversations with Annie.
DOJ-OGR-00013805.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Mulligan, by an attorney, Ms. Sternheim. The questioning probes the reliability of Mr. Mulligan's memory of events from over 25 years prior and his awareness of media coverage and documentaries involving his 'close friend,' Ms. Farmer.
DOJ-OGR-00013788.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, associated with the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It records the conclusion of testimony by witness A. Farmer (Annie Farmer), with both Ms. Pomerantz and Ms. Menninger stating they have no further questions. The government then attempts to call David Mulligan as the next witness, but Ms. Sternheim interrupts to request a sidebar/conference with the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00013657.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument among attorneys Ms. Pomerantz, Ms. Menninger, and Ms. Sternheim before a judge. The core issue is the potential use of the word "rape" in relation to a witness's prior statement, with the defense arguing it is inflammatory and prejudicial. The judge ultimately overrules the objection, stating that a witness's denial of being raped is not suggestive of the opposite and is relevant to the witness's credibility.
DOJ-OGR-00013558.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022. The judge and attorneys for the government and defense discuss the scheduling of future trial events, such as the charge conference and closing arguments, which depends on when the defense will rest its case. A defense attorney, Ms. Comey, also brings up an unresolved issue regarding a subpoena issued to a Mr. Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00013540.jpg
This document is an index of examination from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the direct, cross, and redirect examinations of witnesses Janine Gill Velez, Shawn, Nicole Hesse, and David Rodgers by various attorneys, providing the corresponding page numbers in the full transcript. The document also includes a list of government exhibits that were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00013537.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge and several attorneys regarding the scheduling of a charging conference and the deadline for a government brief. The judge expresses a preference to hold the conference on Friday, while the government's attorney suggests filing their brief by 8 p.m. that evening.
DOJ-OGR-00013313.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It depicts the beginning of the direct examination of a witness named Shawn by prosecutor Ms. Comey. Shawn identifies Government Exhibit 20 as a copy of his ID, and the defense attorney Ms. Sternheim voices no objection to the exhibit.
DOJ-OGR-00013311.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Gill Velez. The questioning attorney, Ms. Sternheim, establishes that Velez began working for a property management company in 2007. Consequently, Velez confirms she has no personal knowledge of how a document from 2000 was created or the information it contains, nor any knowledge of the company's record-keeping practices prior to her employment.
DOJ-OGR-00013310.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a moment in a trial where an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, points the jury to a specific line in "Government Exhibit 14" that reads "father of child." Subsequently, another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, begins her cross-examination of the witness, Gill Velez.
DOJ-OGR-00013308.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Witness Gill Velez testifies during direct examination by prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding Government Exhibit 823, identified as a personnel action notice from Mar-a-Lago records documenting the hiring of Sky Roberts. The exhibit is admitted into evidence over an objection by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00013304.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a proceeding on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Sternheim before a judge. The judge overrules a relevance objection made by Ms. Sternheim regarding evidence or a case mentioned by Mr. Rohrbach, but allows her to state the objection for the record.
DOJ-OGR-00013299.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal discussion about the admissibility of a piece of evidence, Government Exhibit 761. An attorney, Ms. Menninger, objects to the admission of the 'financial guarantor piece' of the exhibit, which suggests Mr. Epstein provided financial assistance, arguing the school in question did not rely on it. The judge clarifies that the relevance lies in the indication of assistance itself, leading to a discussion about providing a limiting instruction to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00013298.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. The text details a legal debate regarding the admissibility of Government Exhibit 761, an application to the Professional Children's School for a minor referred to as 'Jane.' The prosecution and the Judge discuss whether the document is admissible as a business record, specifically noting that the application listed Jeffrey Epstein as a financial guarantor, which the Court deemed relevant to show the family's perception of Epstein's financial support.
DOJ-OGR-00013297.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a legal argument between the defense (Sternheim) and prosecution (Rohrbach) regarding the admissibility of evidence (exhibits 823 and 824) and hearsay concerns. The prosecution mentions Ms. Gill, the head of HR for Mar-a-Lago, noting she has reviewed a specific employment file relevant to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00013296.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Judge regarding the admissibility of information on an insurance form, specifically whether listing family members constitutes hearsay. The discussion references the 'Lieberman' case precedent regarding business records and verification procedures.
DOJ-OGR-00013295.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorneys Rohrbach (Gov) and Sternheim (Defense) argue before the Judge regarding the admissibility of insurance forms and medical billing records related to Mar-a-Lago. The debate centers on whether a form filled out by 'Mr. Roberts' constitutes hearsay and if a witness, Ms. Gill, can testify to practices that occurred before her employment began.
DOJ-OGR-00013294.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 10, 2022) in the case USA v. Maxwell. The Court and attorneys discuss the admissibility of Mar-a-Lago personnel records (Exhibits 823 and 824) intended to prove that Virginia Roberts was the daughter and dependent of an employee, Mr. Roberts. The debate centers on whether the employee-filled forms constitute hearsay or admissible business records verified by the employer.
DOJ-OGR-00013293.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge, Ms. Sternheim (Defense), and Mr. Rohrbach (Government) regarding the admissibility of evidence (exhibits 823 and 824, identified as insurance cards). The Judge cites *United States v. Lieberman* as relevant case law while the court waits for a delayed juror.
DOJ-OGR-00013292.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge (THE COURT), a government attorney (Mr. Rohrbach), and a defense attorney (Mr. Everdell) regarding a minor issue with the fourth witness, identified as Mr. Rogers. The parties agree to resolve the issue during a break, and the court adjourns until the jury is present.
Scheduling break
Let's get started. My plan was to break at 3:30.
Admissibility of Documents 823 and 824
Discussion regarding a personal action notice for Sky Roberts and insurance documents listing his dependents.
Pending redaction issues
Spoke regarding pending redaction issues.
Jury Confusion
Argument that the jury mentioning New Mexico for a New York count indicates confusion not solved by simple referral.
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.
Redirect examination
Asking if testimony would differ if called by the government.
Admissibility of Insurance Records
Argument regarding whether insurance forms constitute business records and what inferences can be drawn regarding Virginia Roberts.
Basis for introducing evidence
Ms. Sternheim refers to "The papers that we filed last night" which state the basis for seeking to introduce certain evidence.
Rule 29 Motion
Defense renews motion pursuant to Rule 29 (Motion for Judgment of Acquittal).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity