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-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.
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.
Format inquiry
Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory.
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
Ms. Sternheim describes the circumstances of Annie's meetings with Epstein in New York and Ghislaine in Santa Fe when Annie was 16.
Defense opening statement in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell
The defense lawyer argues that the case is about Epstein's conduct, not Maxwell's, and that the government's case relies on four accusers whose memories are corrupted and motivated by money.
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.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests to raise an issue at sidebar with the Judge, and the Judge agrees.
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.
Pending redaction issues
Ms. Moe informed the court that she had spoken with Ms. Sternheim that morning about the redaction issues being discussed.
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.
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.
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 objection
Ms. Sternheim objects to evidence based on relevance and foundation as a business record.
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.
Evidentiary objection regarding witness credibility
A dialogue between Ms. Sternheim and the Court regarding the legal basis for an objection to testimony. The Court argues that since Ms. Sternheim's side attacked a witness's credibility regarding her upbringing, the opposing side can bring in evidence to support it. The Court presses Ms. Sternheim for the specific rule (e.g., Relevance, 403) underpinning her objection.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity