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-00009246.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing an afternoon session where the Court addresses matters that arose during a luncheon recess, including a financial affidavit from Ms. Conrad and a voice mail she left stating she would not attend the hearing. The transcript also covers an examination by Mr. Gair and Mr. Okula regarding a prior conversation on December 20th with Judge Pauley about 'The Answerer's' financial ability to hire a lawyer and their personal finances, which 'The Answerer' claimed were irrelevant.
DOJ-OGR-00009240.jpg
This court transcript from February 15, 2012, documents the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Conrad, who is also a trained lawyer. The questioning centers on her defiance of a court order to appear, having told Judge Pauley's clerk she was not coming, and her rationale for this action which she is unable to explain. The testimony also reveals she was unaware of a potential immunity deal and had met with her apparent counsel, Ms. Sternheim, six times before the hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00009239.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, for the case of United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas. It captures the direct examination of witness Catherine M. Conrad, who initially pleads the Fifth Amendment regarding her prior testimony from March 2011. After being granted use immunity by the court, Conrad admits under questioning that her previous testimony as a prospective juror contained both omissions and lies.
DOJ-OGR-00009238.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, in the case of U.S. v. Daugertas. The transcript details a legal argument regarding a request to close the courtroom for the testimony of a witness, Catherine Conrad, due to sensitive information about her alcohol dependency and disciplinary proceedings. The court denies the request, citing prior disclosures of the information and the defendants' right to a public proceeding. The transcript also reveals that Ms. Conrad intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment right, and counsel has submitted an application to compel her testimony with immunity.
DOJ-OGR-00009106.jpg
This document is a single page (page 9 of 10) from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It records the voir dire examination of a prospective juror who confirms they do not listen to podcasts or follow criminal cases in the news. The juror affirms their ability to be fair and impartial to both sides, and both Ms. Pomerantz and Ms. Sternheim decline to ask further questions.
DOJ-OGR-00009104.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on February 24, 2022. It captures the voir dire examination of Juror No. 50, where the court questions the prospective juror about their age (35), residence (Manhattan), education (bachelor's in finance), and employment history as an executive assistant in finance.
DOJ-OGR-00017365.jpg
This document is page 122 of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a brief exchange where Ms. Sternheim requests a sidebar with the Judge to discuss an issue, which the Court grants. The document notes that the subsequent pages containing the sidebar discussion (pages 123-125) are sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00017362.jpg
This document is the final page of a court transcript from a proceeding on August 10, 2022, filed as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The judge discusses rising COVID incidents at a facility and states they will look into availability of something at a location called MDC. After confirming neither the government (Ms. Moe) nor the defense (Ms. Sternheim) have anything further, the court is adjourned.
DOJ-OGR-00017360.jpg
This document is a court transcript page dated August 10, 2022, detailing the conclusion of a trial. The judge confirms a unanimous verdict with two individual jurors, then addresses the counsel before formally dismissing the entire jury. The judge provides the jury with specific instructions regarding their freedom to discuss the case while also mandating confidentiality about the deliberation process, the identities of other jurors, and any information under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00017353.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, and the Court regarding the trial schedule, particularly concerning holiday plans and the jury's commitment through January 15th. The Judge decides to proceed with the trial every day, overriding preferences for a break, due to the significant concern that a participant testing positive for COVID-19 would cause a substantial quarantine delay, which is deemed a greater risk to the trial's progress.
DOJ-OGR-00017349.jpg
This document is the final page of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It records a brief exchange between the Judge ('The Court'), Ms. Moe (Prosecution), and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) confirming there are no further matters to discuss while the jury is not present. The proceedings are adjourned until December 29, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.
DOJ-OGR-00017333.jpg
This document is the final page (29 of 29) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It records the end of the court session where the jury is dismissed, and attorneys Ms. Moe (Government) and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) confirm they have no further matters. The court adjourns until December 28, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.
DOJ-OGR-00017326.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving legal arguments over jury instructions for 'Count Four' (a transportation count). Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim debate how to address a jury question concerning whether flights to New Mexico can be considered for a charge based on New York Penal Law Section 130.55. The defense (Sternheim) argues the jury is confused about jurisdiction.
DOJ-OGR-00017325.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Menninger, Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Everdell) regarding a jury question. The conversation focuses on how to properly instruct the jury on 'Count Four', specifically concerning the intent and purpose of travel in relation to an 'aiding and abetting' charge. The judge resolves the ambiguity by directing the jury to review the full written instructions.
DOJ-OGR-00017313.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a discussion between the Judge and counsel regarding jury deliberation schedules, followed by the Judge reading a specific note from the jury. The note asks a legal question about 'Count Four,' specifically whether the defendant can be found guilty if she aided in the transportation of a victim named 'Jane' on a return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico, for the purpose of sexual activity.
DOJ-OGR-00017312.jpg
This document is page 8 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The court receives a note from the jury requesting the transcript of testimony provided by David Rodgers (Epstein's pilot). The Judge and counsel (Ms. Moe for the government, Mr. Everdell and Ms. Sternheim for the defense) discuss the request and the schedule for jury deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00017311.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between the court and several individuals about a new rule requiring N95 or KN95 masks in the courthouse. The court also addresses the handling of two notes requesting evidence, specifically "Parkinson's transcript" (to be provided) and "Matt's transcript" (which has already been sent).
DOJ-OGR-00017304.jpg
This is page 7 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The proceedings are taking place without the jury present. The Court discusses upcoming masking rules due to COVID-19 concerns, wishes the counsel happy holidays, and adjourns the trial until December 27, 2021. Ms. Comey (Prosecution) and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) confirm they have no further matters to discuss.
DOJ-OGR-00017301.jpg
This is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a judge's management of jury proceedings. The judge notes the jury's desire to adhere to their plans for the next day, confirms that a limiting instruction regarding 'Annie's testimony' was correctly provided, and sets a 4:25 PM dismissal time. Counsel, Ms. Comey and Ms. Sternheim, confirm they have no further matters to discuss before the jury is brought in.
DOJ-OGR-00017299.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case where the judge and counsel discuss how to communicate with a deliberating jury about their schedule. The judge proposes a note asking if the jury wants to deliberate the next day, "December 23rd". After a recess, the court receives a note back from the jury requesting the testimonies of individuals named Jane and Kate Wong.
DOJ-OGR-00017297.jpg
This document is the final page of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the moment the court adjourns the proceedings for the day, with participants Ms. Comey and Ms. Sternheim present. The session is scheduled to resume at 9:00 a.m. on December 22, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00017296.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between the judge and attorneys after the jury has been dismissed, focusing on procedural matters such as the government's review of transcripts and the defense's readiness to proceed. The judge also outlines instructions for contacting the alternate jurors to inform them that deliberations are ongoing.
DOJ-OGR-00017294.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. It details a sidebar or open court discussion during jury deliberations where the Judge addresses a question from the jury, confirms the schedule for dismissal at 5:00 PM, and arranges lunch for the following day. The Judge also notes a directive from the Chief Judge requiring masks to be worn in the jury room due to a COVID-19 variant.
DOJ-OGR-00017289.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between a judge and multiple counsel regarding a note from the jury. The jury, via Court Exhibit 9, asks if they can consider 'Annie's testimony' as evidence of conspiracy for two specific counts. The government's counsel, Ms. Comey, affirms this, while another counsel, Mr. Everdell, requests time to confer on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00017288.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 two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Ms. Sternheim, and the Judge regarding the jury's deliberation schedule around the Christmas holiday. The main point of discussion is whether to offer the jury the option to deliberate on Thursday, December 23rd, and the importance of informing them promptly to allow for personal arrangements, such as childcare.
Checking on Mr. Hamilton's availability
The Court instructs Ms. Sternheim to 'make that call' to check on Mr. Hamilton's availability, and she confirms she is doing so.
Witness Testimony Objection
Discussing objections to the relevance of testimony from upcoming witnesses called out of order.
Format inquiry
Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory.
Scheduling concerns
Asking if there are concerns regarding the Friday morning session plan.
Confidentiality for Ms. Conrad's testimony
A letter submitted by Ms. Sternheim regarding Ms. Conrad's confidentiality, medical conditions, disciplinary proceedings, and intention to assert her Fifth Amendment right.
Witness's positive COVID test
A letter was apparently sent to the Court, mentioned by the judge, which stated that Ms. Sternheim's side had the witness's positive COVID test result.
Sentencing Arguments
Argument regarding sentencing guidelines, probation recommendations, and culpability comparison between Maxwell and Epstein.
Request to speak
Request to stand at the podium and address the victims directly.
Sentencing and Fines
Discussion regarding the imposition of a fine, the status of a bequest in a will, and the formal imposition of the sentence.
Sentencing of Ms. Maxwell
Ms. Sternheim addresses the court during Ms. Maxwell's sentencing. She acknowledges the victims, confirms the judge can hear her, and begins to argue against the government's sentencing recommendation.
Sentencing Arguments
Defense argues for a lower sentence, citing the probation department's recommendation and comparing Maxwell's culpability to Epstein's.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests to raise an issue at sidebar with the Judge, and the Judge agrees.
Pending redaction issues
Ms. Moe informed the court that she had spoken with Ms. Sternheim that morning about the redaction issues being discussed.
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.
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'.
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.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests a sidebar to discuss matters related to a witness with anonymity status.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity