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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Sentencing Hearing for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Court filing date of the transcript document. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Courtroom discussion regarding logistics of presenting evidence on screens. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing of court document 761 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Discussion of Exhibits 823 and 824 | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Trial Resumed | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Recess pending verdict | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Discussion on Deliberation Schedule | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing date of the court transcript document. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court Recess | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Discussion regarding witne... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding opening statements and admissibility of arguments about witness coaching. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Conclusion of testimony for witness 'Kate'. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing date for the transcript document. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of Professor Loftus in court regarding memory stages. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing of transcript | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing of Document 741 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding jury selection procedure (alternating strikes). | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Closing Arguments (Summation Phase) | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings (Direct examination of Parkinson) | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings without the jury present. Discussion regarding the provision of transcripts to ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding jury charges and closing arguments. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Discussion of evidence... | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Opening statement delivered by Ms. Sternheim in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | courtroom | 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').
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.
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.
Redirect examination
Asking if testimony would differ if called by the government.
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