Ms. Sternheim
PersonRelationship Network
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Court proceeding regarding trial schedule, closing arguments, and jury deliberation timing relati... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court Recess pending verdict | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court proceeding sidebar or argument regarding courtroom logistics and COVID protocols. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Opening statement by Ms. Sternheim defending Ghislaine Maxwell | Open Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding three missing jurors who are stuck on the security line or unaccounted for o... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding upcoming sentencing and review of the presentence report. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection (Voir Dire) for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness 'Kate' | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Reading of Jury Note regarding Count Four | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Janine Gill Velez | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Reading of Jury Note | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness 'Kate' regarding exhibits 3513-014. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding jury deliberation schedule and closing arguments | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing where the judge discusses factors for punishment. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court proceedings discussing jury instructions and a question from the jury regarding Count Four. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | Discussion of the trial schedule. The defense case is set to begin on the 16th. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Closing arguments are anticipated for the 20th or 21st. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Witness Kate is questioned by Ms. Pomerantz about a visit to Maxwell's house and is shown Governm... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | A court hearing to discuss the schedule for jury deliberations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court examination | Cross-examination of DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN by Ms. Sternheim, starting on page 2242. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Future court hearing | The court scheduled the next session for the 23rd of the month. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | An upcoming trial that Ms. Sternheim is scheduled to start on the 16th of the month. | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Examination of witness KATE, including direct, cross, redirect, and recross. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The judge discusses jury deliberation scheduling with counsel, sends a note to the jury, takes a ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Court examination | Cross-examination of witness DANIEL ALAN BESSELSEN by Ms. Sternheim. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00013291.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal debate over whether employee insurance records from Mar-a-Lago (Government Exhibit 824) can be admitted as business records. Mr. Rohrbach argues they are kept for business purposes, while Ms. Sternheim contends they contain inadmissible hearsay. The judge concludes that testimony is required to establish a proper foundation before ruling on their admissibility.
DOJ-OGR-00013290.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal debate over whether an insurance form can be used as evidence. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues that a form filled out by Mar-a-Lago employee Sky Roberts for Virginia Roberts is not a business record of Mar-a-Lago and cannot prove Virginia Roberts' employment there. The government's attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, contends the form is relevant because it shows Virginia Roberts was the dependent of a Mar-a-Lago employee, while the judge notes the records do not directly support claims of her employment.
DOJ-OGR-00013288.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues for the relevance of documents, such as a birth certificate, to connect a Virginia Roberts (daughter of Sky Roberts) to the individual who was allegedly present at Mar-a-Lago in 2000 and who was the subject of testimony by Juan Alessi and Carolyn. Opposing counsel, Ms. Sternheim, objects on the grounds of relevance and foundation.
DOJ-OGR-00010264.jpg
This is page 49 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. The Judge sets a schedule for simultaneous briefing due on the 15th (limited to 15 pages) and rules on the docketing of materials. The Court explicitly orders that identifying information for 'Juror 50' be redacted from submitted questions before they are docketed, while stating a previous judicial opinion will be docketed without redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00010261.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 11, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a dialogue between the judge, Ms. Sternheim, and Ms. Pomerantz regarding an individual's understanding of the case based on a questionnaire they completed. The judge reads aloud a portion of the case summary from the questionnaire, which states the defendant is charged with conspiring with and aiding and abetting Jeffrey Epstein to entice minors to travel between 1994 and 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00010260.jpg
This document is page 45 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. It details an inquiry by the Court into a witness or potential juror's interactions with reporters regarding their personal history of sexual abuse. Following the questioning, a sidebar conference occurs where defense attorney Ms. Sternheim requests the Judge ask the individual about their knowledge of the case summary, noting the individual admitted to knowing the case was about sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00010253.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on March 11, 2022. It captures a discussion between the court, Ms. Sternheim, and Mr. Everdell regarding a prior interview with an unnamed male subject. The conversation centers on clarifying what was said during that interview, particularly the subject's reaction to personal questions, and the court ultimately rules that the subject's motivation for speaking to the press after a trial is not relevant to the current matter.
DOJ-OGR-00010248.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on March 11, 2022, from the case USA v. Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). It records a discussion between the Judge and defense attorneys (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Sternheim) regarding a juror who had posted on social media and was a victim of sexual abuse himself. The defense argues that the juror's history and desire to be on an 'interesting' jury involving sexual abuse victims impact his ability to be impartial, and they discuss whether he followed court instructions during voir dire.
DOJ-OGR-00010246.jpg
This is page 31 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on March 11, 2022. Defense attorneys Sternheim and Everdell are arguing with the Judge regarding the scope of questioning for a juror who allegedly failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse. The defense is pushing to question the juror about his public statements to reporters and a specific post directed to victim Annie Farmer, while the Judge refuses to allow questions about internal jury deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00010245.jpg
This document is a court transcript from March 11, 2022, detailing a colloquy during jury selection for a case involving sexual abuse of a minor. The judge denies a request for specific follow-up questions to a potential juror, reasoning that the defense had not made similar requests for another juror and that core questions of fairness had been addressed. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, then challenges the judge on whether the juror was adequately questioned about the specific, sensitive nature of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00009927.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the direct examination of Ms. Conrad, a former juror in the case against Paul M. Daugerdas. The questioning focuses on her financial situation, her memory of prior court proceedings, and her past confrontational statements to the court, such as calling her husband a "convicted felon" whom she might retain as a lawyer and telling the court that her finances were "none of your business." Ms. Conrad's testimony is evasive and hostile, suggesting a contentious relationship with the court and the defendant's counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00009919.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 15, 2012, detailing the questioning of a witness, likely Ms. Conrad, in the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL. The questioning focuses on her understanding of a court order and subpoena issued by Judge Pauley, her legal training, and her prior statements to court staff that she would not appear or testify. The witness also mentions having met Ms. Sternheim six times and having 'Googled' the questioner after a previous trial.
DOJ-OGR-00009918.jpg
This document contains transcript pages 101-104 from the case United States v. Daugerdas, dated February 15, 2012. The witness, Catherine M. Conrad, a former juror in the case, initially asserts her Fifth Amendment privilege regarding her previous voir dire testimony but is subsequently granted immunity by the Court. Under questioning by attorney Mr. Gair, Conrad admits to lies and omissions during her jury service selection in 2011 and confirms she called Judge Pauley's chambers earlier that morning to state she would not attend court.
DOJ-OGR-00009917.jpg
This document is a court transcript from *United States v. Paul M. Daugerdas* dated February 15, 2012. It details a hearing regarding Juror No. 1, Catherine Conrad, who intends to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Her attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues for the courtroom to be closed to protect Conrad's privacy regarding alcohol dependence and disciplinary records, but the Court denies this request, citing that the information is already public.
DOJ-OGR-00009797.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a voir dire proceeding filed on March 24, 2022. A judge questions a potential juror about their personal habits, media consumption, and past affiliations to determine their fitness for jury duty. The juror affirms they can be fair and impartial, and the two counsel present, Ms. Pomerantz and Ms. Sternheim, decline to ask any questions.
DOJ-OGR-00009795.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) recording the voir dire process. The Court is questioning Juror No. 50, a 35-year-old Manhattan resident who works as an executive assistant in finance and has held that role since graduating college in 2008.
DOJ-OGR-00009617.jpg
This legal document is a letter dated March 2, 2022, from attorney Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan. Pagliuca, on behalf of his client Ghislaine Maxwell, requests an adjournment of a hearing on a Motion for New Trial, originally scheduled for March 8. The reason for the request is the unavailability of Maxwell's legal counsel, including Pagliuca, Ms. Menninger, and Ms. Sternheim, due to their mandatory participation in other lengthy trials in Colorado and New York.
DOJ-OGR-00014746.jpg
This document is the final page (13 of 13) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves Ms. Sternheim (Defense) noting rising COVID rates at the MDC facility, and the Court acknowledging availability (presumably of vaccines or testing) at the MDC before adjourning the session. Ms. Moe represents the government.
DOJ-OGR-00014745.jpg
This document is page 12 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The judge thanks and discharges the jury, acknowledging their service during the pandemic. Following the jury's dismissal, the court and counsel (Mr. Everdell and Ms. Sternheim) discuss post-verdict logistics, including a briefing schedule and the presentence report, concluding with Ms. Sternheim requesting a court order for Ms. Maxwell to receive a COVID-19 booster shot.
DOJ-OGR-00014744.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the dismissal of a jury after a unanimous verdict. The judge confirms the verdict with two individual jurors, Juror No. 119 and Juror No. 7, before formally dismissing the entire jury. The judge provides explicit instructions that while jurors are free to discuss their own experiences, they are forbidden from revealing the identities of other jurors or any information under seal, including the identities of anonymous witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00014738.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between the judge, Ms. Moe, and Ms. Sternheim about the schedule for ongoing jury deliberations, including over the New Year's holiday. The parties agree on the schedule and the specific language of the instructions to be given to the jury, ensuring jurors know how to report hardships and are not pressured to reach a verdict.
DOJ-OGR-00014737.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a discussion between Defense Attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Judge regarding the jury's deliberation schedule over the New Year holidays (Jan 1 and 2). The Judge insists on a strict schedule to minimize the risk of trial delays caused by potential COVID-19 quarantine requirements.
DOJ-OGR-00014732.jpg
This document is a short court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It records the end of a day's proceedings where the judge confirms with counsel, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, that there are no further matters and adjourns the court until 9:00 a.m. on December 29, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00014715.jpg
This document is the final page of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. The judge confirms with counsel, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, that there are no further matters to discuss. The court is then formally adjourned until 9:00 a.m. on December 28, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00014708.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, and the judge regarding jury confusion over 'Count Four'. The jury is questioning the relevance of flights to New Mexico for a charge that must be considered under New York law, and the counsel debate whether simply referring the jury to the existing instructions is sufficient to resolve the issue.
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