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 hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the admissibility of extrinsic evidence to show bias. The s... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion on the record between the judge and attorneys about how to answer a question from th... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court hearing took place where scheduling for the remainder of a trial was discussed. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Sidebar discussion | The judge and counsel discussed procedures for handling alternate jurors, agreeing they could be ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where the judge and attorneys discussed the schedule and instructions for jury... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the judge and attorneys about the court schedule, specifically the end time ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where the judge, Ms. Comey, and Ms. Sternheim discuss redacting evidence, incl... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | The redirect examination of witness Mulligan concludes, and he is excused. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | An afternoon session of a trial, held in open court but without the jury present initially. The j... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court discussion regarding the factual record, an employer's practice, the admission of Governm... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion during a trial about the schedule. The judge ruled to continue the trial daily to mi... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A request for a sidebar discussion was made by Ms. Sternheim and granted by the Court. The conten... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A cross-examination of a witness named Kate regarding her U visa. Ms. Sternheim successfully move... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Meeting | The attorneys agree to confer to narrow the issues regarding prior inconsistent statements. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where procedural matters were discussed, including making copies, taking a recess... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding jury instructions for a case involving an alleged victim named Ka... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of witness 'Kate' in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Attorneys argue over the admissibility of a question regarding a witness's motive. The judge sust... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Trial proceeding | During a trial recess with the jury not present, the court and counsel discuss notes from the jur... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Conclusion of witness A. Farmer's testimony and the calling of the next witness, David Mulligan. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court hearing where procedural matters were discussed, including witness testimony sharing, wit... | Courtroom (unspecified) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of a witness named Shawn by Ms. Comey. Shawn is asked to spell his name and id... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Redirect examination | Ms. Sternheim conducts a redirect examination of Professor Loftus regarding her career in psychol... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A witness, Jane, is excused from the stand following her testimony. The court calls for a mid-aft... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion during a court hearing regarding the scope of cross-examination of a witness named C... | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018463.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Court regarding the admissibility of evidence—specifically an email—under the doctrine of 'past recollection recorded.' The Judge questions what specific details the witness failed to recall that would necessitate admitting the prior record.
DOJ-OGR-00018462.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a legal exchange between Ms. Sternheim (Defense) and Ms. Pomerantz (Prosecution) regarding an exhibit labeled 'Defendant's K-8' or '3513-019'. Ms. Pomerantz begins a legal argument citing the 'recorded recollection rule' as an exception to hearsay.
DOJ-OGR-00018461.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz discuss the admissibility and origin of two exhibits: a visa application bearing the name 'Kate' (Exhibit K-9) and emails between a witness and Mr. Epstein (Exhibit K-7). Ms. Pomerantz clarifies that the visa form was provided by the witness's counsel during a previous meeting to discuss visa status.
DOJ-OGR-00018460.jpg
This document is a court transcript from an afternoon session on August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Moe, confirms with the court and opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, an agreement regarding the '900 series' of exhibits. Following this, another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, begins to make a request for the court to order the government to disclose certain information.
DOJ-OGR-00018457.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, questions Kate about her employment in the music industry and her limited knowledge of the requirements for a U visa, specifically its connection to being a victim of a crime. After the questioning concludes, another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, requests a break from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00018455.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) documenting the cross-examination of a witness named Kate by Ms. Sternheim. The questioning focuses on Kate's immigration status, specifically her request to the government for a 'U visa' (often used for victims of crimes assisting law enforcement) and the renewability of her current 'exceptional' visa. Kate confirms she met with the government approximately 10 times to prepare for her testimony and requested an inquiry into the U visa.
DOJ-OGR-00018453.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate by an attorney, Ms. Sternheim. Ms. Sternheim introduces an exhibit labeled 'Defendant's K9' and questions Kate, directing her to find and confirm her 'true name' within the document.
DOJ-OGR-00018452.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. The questioning focuses on whether Kate has applied for a U visa, a special visa for victims who assist the government. Kate states she made an inquiry but is unsure if she filled out an application and explicitly denies wanting the U visa.
DOJ-OGR-00018449.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a cross-examination of a person named Kate. The questioning covers a $1,200 payment for therapy and Kate's familiarity with a man named Ray Hamilton, whom she describes as an acquaintance and a friend of a friend, known both in 'the states' and London.
DOJ-OGR-00018444.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Kate in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The witness admits to initiating contact with Jeffrey Epstein in 2011, asking to stay with him in New York, and maintaining contact with him via email over the years. Conversely, the witness confirms she had no email correspondence with Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00018442.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. It details the cross-examination of a witness named 'Kate' by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim. The questioning focuses on establishing that the witness maintained email correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein in 2008 (regarding pictures) and in 2011, even after he had been in jail.
DOJ-OGR-00018441.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. The questioning, led by Ms. Sternheim, focuses on Kate's correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein while he was in jail. Kate confirms the correspondence, admits she told Epstein she would send pictures (but denies actually sending them), and confirms she signed her letters with 'Best love always, Kate'.
DOJ-OGR-00018436.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named 'Kate' by Ms. Sternheim. The questioning focuses on a past custody dispute, allegations of planting drugs (which are denied), and the witness's 'acquaintanceship' with a man connected to the Royal Family during the late 1990s, specifically mentioning an interaction at the Cannes Film Festival.
DOJ-OGR-00018433.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a sidebar discussion from a trial, filed on August 10, 2022. During the cross-examination of a witness named Kate, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim is questioned by the judge about the relevance of asking about the witness leaving her husband to travel with Ghislaine and Jeffrey Epstein. Opposing counsel, Ms. Pomerantz, objects to the line of questioning, arguing it is suggestive and should have been raised as a '412 issue'.
DOJ-OGR-00018418.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate by an attorney, Ms. Sternheim. The questioning concerns Kate's filmography, referencing specific numbered items on a list and the IMDB system. An objection for lack of foundation is made by another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, which the court sustains.
DOJ-OGR-00018417.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate by an attorney, Ms. Sternheim. The questioning focuses on Kate's past acting career, specifically her roles as an extra. The examination is interrupted by a procedural issue when Ms. Sternheim refers to an exhibit, 'defense K7', which is missing from the binders of both the witness and the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00018410.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate by a lawyer, Ms. Sternheim. The questioning focuses on Kate's prior testimony about admiring a person named Ghislaine and probes into the wealth of her family, specifically her mother and her stepfather, who owned a private plane.
DOJ-OGR-00018409.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar discussion regarding '3500 material' where a prosecutor argues for the right to ask redirect questions about a witness's history as a domestic violence victim if defense attorney Ms. Sternheim raises the issue. The judge agrees, the witness is recalled, and the jury is brought back in.
DOJ-OGR-00018408.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a sidebar discussion where a judge rules to exclude evidence of a single sexual harassment allegation due to a lack of a pattern or proffer of falsity. Following the ruling, two attorneys, Ms. Pomerantz and Ms. Sternheim, discuss a planned line of questioning for a witness. Ms. Sternheim clarifies her intent is not to ask about the witness's ex-husband, but rather to ask if the witness had requested a friend to plant drugs on the father of her child.
DOJ-OGR-00018407.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion before the direct examination of a witness named Kate. Counsel, Ms. Sternheim, requests a sidebar with the Judge to address matters concerning the witness's anonymity status. The Court agrees, and the subsequent pages of the transcript are sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00018401.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Kate. She explains that she continued to communicate with an individual named Epstein throughout her twenties and early thirties, maintaining a 'friendly' tone. Kate states her reasons for doing so were fear of disengaging and a reluctance to acknowledge past events, and that she eventually stopped communicating with him in her early thirties.
DOJ-OGR-00018389.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Kate. Kate testifies that Ghislaine Maxwell told her about Jeffrey Epstein's sexual preferences, stating he liked 'cute, young, pretty' girls and that he 'needed to have sex about three times a day'. This testimony suggests Maxwell's role in communicating Epstein's sexual demands and grooming potential victims.
DOJ-OGR-00016909.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. The transcript captures the conclusion of the government's case, as confirmed by Ms. Comey, and the subsequent colloquy between the judge and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The judge formally advises Ms. Maxwell of her right to testify or not to testify, stressing that the decision is hers alone, despite any advice from her attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00016896.jpg
This document is page 167 of a court transcript (Document 763) filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The page captures the moment a recess is called immediately after Ms. Sternheim acknowledges a statement regarding a 'right to testify or not testify.' The majority of the page is blank as the proceedings continued on the next page.
DOJ-OGR-00016880.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Menninger, Everdell, Sternheim, and Moe). The discussion clarifies that a 'short matter' scheduled for the following Monday is the testimony of a witness from London. A potential issue is raised by Ms. Moe, who states that the witness's name was not on the witness list provided to the government.
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.
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.
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