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-00017287.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge and several attorneys (Mr. Pagliuca, Ms. Menninger, Ms. Sternheim) regarding the scheduling of jury deliberations. The judge sets the hours for the following day and considers the possibility of the jury working on an upcoming Thursday, noting that the court is not always closed before Christmas Eve.
DOJ-OGR-00017286.jpg
A court transcript page (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting a discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and attorneys (Ms. Sternheim, Ms. Menninger, Ms. Comey) regarding the handling and redaction of jury notes. The parties discuss that counsel knows the identity of jurors, allowing them to see unredacted notes, but public exhibits must be redacted. The transcript ends with the Court reading a note from the jury requesting to end deliberations at 5 p.m.
DOJ-OGR-00017284.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a conversation between the judge and several individuals, likely attorneys, regarding testimony from 'Carolyn' and 'Special Agent Jason Richards' concerning an exhibit. The discussion concludes with a request for court notes, which the judge agrees to provide after redacting the jury foreperson's signature.
DOJ-OGR-00017281.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge regarding how to instruct the jury about a document used for impeachment but not admitted into evidence. The parties debate the appropriate wording to avoid confusion while acknowledging the testimony related to the document.
DOJ-OGR-00017280.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, during jury deliberations. The jury sent notes requesting testimony transcripts for witnesses Jane, Annie, and Carolyn, as well as an FBI deposition (3505-005) related to Carolyn. Counsel (Ms. Comey and Ms. Sternheim) discuss preparing these documents with necessary redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00017278.jpg
This document is the final page of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript captures the end of a day's proceedings, where the judge (THE COURT) confirms with counsel (Ms. Moe for the government and Ms. Sternheim) that there are no further matters. The court is then adjourned until 9:00 a.m. on December 21, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00017273.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Pagliuca, Mr. Everdell) about the procedures for jury deliberations. The judge outlines the schedule, including a 9:00 a.m. start time, and clarifies that exhibits will be provided automatically to the jury. The discussion also covers the roles of court staff like the deputy and marshal in managing the jury process.
DOJ-OGR-00017272.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sidebar conversation on August 10, 2022. The judge discusses with counsel the procedures for alternate jurors, deciding they can be on-call due to the pandemic, rather than remaining at the courthouse. The judge also confirms the specific numbers of the five alternate jurors with the agreement of all counsel present.
DOJ-OGR-00014008.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Rohrbach before a judge. The discussion centers on whether extrinsic evidence can be used to impeach the testimony of a witness named Kate by showing bias, specifically in relation to her statement "it fell into my lap." The judge cites the Second Circuit case *United States v. Harvey* to clarify the applicable law on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00013996.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion during a trial break. The judge instructs the attorneys (Pomerantz, Sternheim, Rohrbach, Everdell) to confer and narrow their disagreements regarding a witness's prior inconsistent statements. The judge states an intention to review these statements during the lunch break to help resolve the issues later that day.
DOJ-OGR-00013995.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures the end of a session, likely the direct examination of a witness named Loftus, where the judge (THE COURT) announces a one-hour lunch break to an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, and the jury. The document was transcribed by Southern District Reporters, P.C.
DOJ-OGR-00013991.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Loftus. Loftus testifies that human memory is a "constructive process," where recollections are built rather than simply replayed like a video. During the testimony, an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, successfully objects to a question on the grounds that it is leading, and the examination is continued by Ms. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00013990.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness named Loftus by attorney Ms. Sternheim. The questioning concerns psychological concepts of memory, specifically the "forgetting curve" and "post-event information." Opposing counsel, Ms. Pomerantz, successfully objects to the line of questioning multiple times, with the court sustaining the objections and instructing the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00013980.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of Professor Loftus by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, specifically discussing the 'acquisition stage' of memory. The transcript details a procedural moment where the defense requests permission to use courtroom monitors as a whiteboard for demonstrative purposes, to which the prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) has no objection.
DOJ-OGR-00013979.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures the moment attorney Ms. Sternheim proffers Professor Elizabeth Loftus as an expert witness on memory science. After the court overrules an objection from Ms. Pomerantz and accepts Loftus as an expert, she begins her testimony by explaining to the jury that human memory is a complex, multi-stage process and not a simple recording device.
DOJ-OGR-00013962.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the beginning of Elizabeth Loftus's direct examination. Ms. Loftus, identified as a professor and scientist, is called as a witness by the Defendant. The excerpt includes procedural discussions between Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Everdell, and THE COURT regarding the handling of an exhibit and the commencement of the witness's testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00013889.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the judge (The Court) and two attorneys, Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell. The conversation focuses on whether to mark an exhibit for identification and clarifies that Mr. Everdell will be calling the first witness. The court then prepares to bring in the jury to proceed with the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00013888.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a procedural discussion between defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Judge regarding the use of electronic equipment to simulate a whiteboard for a jury demonstration because COVID protocols prevented the person ('she') from standing directly before the jury. The discussion centers on whether a picture of the digital drawing needs to be preserved for the record.
DOJ-OGR-00013887.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between several attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Comey, Ms. Sternheim) and the judge. The discussion covers procedural issues such as making photocopies, a request for a brief recess, and a request to use a screen for a potential witness, Dr. Loftus. The court resolves the copying issue and prepares to bring in the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00013882.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a pre-trial discussion. Defense counsel, Mr. Everdell, informs the court of an agreement with the government to limit the cross-examination of the first witness, Ms. Espinosa. The agreement specifically prevents the government from questioning Ms. Espinosa about a separate civil lawsuit where Ms. Galindo was a defendant in a case related to Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00013881.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about allowing a witness to testify remotely via WebEx. Counsel argues the witness is unavailable due to a positive COVID test, referencing the case United States v. Al-Fawwaz. The court accepts the reason for unavailability and anticipates permitting the remote testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00013880.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The transcript details a discussion between the Judge and prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach regarding the admissibility of remote testimony for a witness who may have tested positive for COVID-19, referencing Ms. Sternheim's proffer and the standards of Rule 15. The government indicates it would not resist a finding of unavailability if a positive test is confirmed.
DOJ-OGR-00013879.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim requests that a male witness, who is quarantined with COVID-19, be allowed to testify via WebEx rather than traveling. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach insists that the witness must be subject to cross-examination (rejecting a stipulation) and demands proof of a positive COVID test.
DOJ-OGR-00013878.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It records a discussion during a hearing concerning the relevance of Dr. Loftus's opinions, Agent Young's testimony, and a motion to preclude Alexander Hamilton's testimony. The court also addresses a defense response regarding a witness and references a legal precedent from 'Hamilton in Federal '78'.
DOJ-OGR-00013857.jpg
This document is an index of examinations from a legal proceeding, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the direct, cross, and redirect examinations of witnesses WILLIAM BROWN, ANNIE FARMER, DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN, and JANICE SWAIN by various attorneys, including Mr. Rohrbach, Ms. Pomerantz, Ms. Menninger, and Ms. Sternheim, referencing the corresponding page numbers in the full transcript.
Witness Testimony Objection
Discussing objections to the relevance of testimony from upcoming witnesses called out of order.
Scheduling concerns
Asking if there are concerns regarding the Friday morning session plan.
Format inquiry
Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory.
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.
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'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.
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.
Scheduling
Requesting to wait until tomorrow.
Pending redaction issues
Ms. Moe informed the court that she had spoken with Ms. Sternheim that morning about the redaction issues being discussed.
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.
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.
Cross-examination of Gill Velez
Ms. Sternheim questions Gill Velez about her employment history with a property management company and her lack of personal knowledge regarding a document dated 2000, as she only started working there in 2007.
Admissibility of Documents 823 and 824
Discussion regarding a personal action notice for Sky Roberts and insurance documents listing his dependents.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests to raise an issue at sidebar with the Judge, and the Judge agrees.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests a sidebar to discuss matters related to a witness with anonymity status.
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
Ms. Sternheim describes the circumstances of Annie's meetings with Epstein in New York and Ghislaine in Santa Fe when Annie was 16.
Admissibility of lawyers as witnesses
A discussion between Ms. Sternheim and the Judge about whether lawyers who attended proffer sessions can be called as witnesses or if their testimony can be referenced.
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.
Jury Confusion
Argument that the jury mentioning New Mexico for a New York count indicates confusion not solved by simple referral.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity