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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-03-11 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where the relevance of a prior interview and the motivations of an individual are... | courtroom | View |
| 2022-03-11 | N/A | Court Hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-03-11 | Court proceeding | A hearing during jury selection where attorneys and the judge discuss the scope of follow-up ques... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-03-11 | N/A | Court hearing/Sidebar in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-03-11 | N/A | Court hearing regarding post-trial briefing and redactions in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghisl... | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-03-11 | Court proceeding | A colloquy in open court regarding a questionnaire filled out by an individual, likely a potentia... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-03-11 | N/A | Court hearing regarding juror misconduct/inquiry | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-02-24 | N/A | Jury selection/Voir dire proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Court proceeding (voir dire) | The court questions a prospective juror, Juror No. 50, about their personal background, including... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2021-12-29 | Court adjournment | The court proceeding was adjourned to December 29, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. | N/A | View |
| 2021-12-28 | Court adjournment | The court session was adjourned to December 28, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-22 | Court adjournment | A court proceeding was adjourned to December 22, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. | N/A | View |
| 2021-12-21 | Court adjournment | The court proceedings were adjourned to December 21, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-21 | Court adjournment | A court proceeding was adjourned until the following day, December 22, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-21 | Court proceeding | Court was adjourned to December 21, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-17 | Court hearing | A court hearing where the government argues that the defense should be required to proffer the ba... | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-17 | Court hearing | A pre-trial or in-trial discussion between the judge and counsel regarding the scope of opening s... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2021-12-17 | N/A | Sidebar Conference | Side bar | View |
| 2021-12-10 | Pretrial conference | A court hearing where procedural matters were discussed, including an exception to witness seques... | Courtroom (unspecified) | View |
| 2021-12-10 | N/A | Court Hearing Adjournment | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2021-12-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding preliminary instructions for witnesses and a potential conflict o... | Court in the Southern Distr... | View |
| 2021-12-08 | Court hearing | A court hearing was held to discuss trial readiness, witness identification, and a voir dire issu... | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-08 | Court proceeding | A discussion about the process of jury selection (voir dire), specifically the target number of q... | courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-07 | N/A | Court Adjournment | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-02 | N/A | Adjournment of the court session to this date at 8:45 a.m. | Courtroom (SDNY) | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014707.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between a judge and several attorneys (Menninger, Sternheim, Everdell). The discussion focuses on formulating a response to a jury's question regarding 'Count Four', specifically concerning the required evidence of intent for sexual activity on a return flight to secure a conviction. The judge finds the jury's question ambiguous and directs them to the full jury instructions, while the counsel argues for a more specific clarification.
DOJ-OGR-00014696.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between the judge and various counsel. The parties address two notes from the jury: one stating a desire to end deliberations at 5 p.m., and another, marked as Court Exhibit 14, for which counsel proposes a response directing the jury to a specific instruction.
DOJ-OGR-00014695.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Court and counsel regarding jury deliberation schedules, followed by the Judge reading a specific note from the jury. The note asks for legal clarification on 'Count Four,' specifically questioning if the defendant can be found guilty if she aided in 'Jane's return flight' but not the initial flight to New Mexico where sexual activity was intended to occur.
DOJ-OGR-00014694.jpg
This court transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between the judge and counsel while a jury is deliberating. The court reads a note from the jury requesting the transcript of David Rodgers and then discusses the potential of extending deliberations into the next day. Counsel Ms. Sternheim advises that the jury should be allowed to set its own schedule without pressure from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00014693.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, likely relating to the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text details a discussion regarding courthouse COVID-19 mask mandates (N95/KN95) and the handling of jury notes during deliberations. Specifically, the jury requested a transcript for 'Parkinson' (Court Exhibit 13) and had previously received supplies and a transcript for 'Matt'.
DOJ-OGR-00014692.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a discussion regarding the legal definition of the word "entice" and a procedural matter of marking a note as a court exhibit. Additionally, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim raises a concern that Ms. Maxwell was provided an N95 mask but restricted to wearing it only in the courtroom, to which the Judge clarifies the rule applies to the whole courthouse.
DOJ-OGR-00014685.jpg
This is the final page (page 7) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The proceedings are adjourned for the holidays until December 27, 2021. The Judge (The Court) discusses upcoming masking rules due to COVID-19 concerns and ensures supplies will be available, while Ms. Comey and Ms. Sternheim confirm they have no further matters to address.
DOJ-OGR-00014682.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), prosecutor Ms. Comey, and defense attorney Ms. Sternheim regarding jury deliberations, specifically addressing a jury note declining an offer because they had plans, and confirming that a 'limiting instruction' was included with the transcript of witness 'Annie's' testimony provided to the jury. The court prepares to dismiss the jury for the day at 4:25 PM.
DOJ-OGR-00014681.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, and prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding a request (likely from the jury) for physical copies of testimonies from witnesses identified as Jane, Juan, and Kate. The parties discuss the formatting (binders, hole punches) and confirm that Ms. Drescher is printing the transcripts with agreed-upon redactions.
DOJ-OGR-00014680.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between Judge Nathan and counsel (Ms. Comey and Ms. Sternheim) regarding a scheduling note to be sent to the deliberating jury about December 23rd. Subsequently, the jury sends a note requesting testimony transcripts for witnesses identified as Jane, Wong, and Kate.
DOJ-OGR-00014677.jpg
This document is the final page of a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It records the judge's decision to adjourn the court proceedings until 9:00 a.m. on December 22, 2021. The transcript captures brief concluding remarks between the judge, Ms. Comey, and Ms. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00014676.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge expresses frustration to Ms. Comey (Government) about a three-hour delay in providing requested transcripts to the jury. The Judge also instructs court staff (Ms. Williams) to contact alternate jurors to inform them that deliberations are ongoing.
DOJ-OGR-00014674.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 records a discussion between the Court, prosecutor Ms. Comey, and defense attorney Ms. Sternheim regarding responses to jury notes, dismissal times during deliberations, lunch orders for the jury, and strict COVID-19 mask protocols mandated by the Chief Judge.
DOJ-OGR-00014669.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the Judge coordinating the dismissal of the jury for the evening and subsequently addressing 'Court Exhibit 9,' a note from the jury asking if 'Annie's testimony' can be considered as conspiracy to commit a crime in Counts One and Three. Ms. Comey argues the answer is yes, while Mr. Everdell requests a moment to confer.
DOJ-OGR-00014668.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. The dialogue involves Ms. Comey, Ms. Sternheim, and the Judge discussing the jury deliberation schedule leading up to the Christmas holiday. They agree to inform the jury that they have the option to deliberate on Thursday, December 23rd, if necessary, to allow jurors time to make childcare or other personal arrangements.
DOJ-OGR-00014667.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge and several other individuals (likely attorneys) about scheduling jury deliberations. The judge outlines a plan for the jury to deliberate from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM the following day and considers offering them the option to continue on Thursday, even though it is close to Christmas Eve.
DOJ-OGR-00014664.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 records a discussion between the judge and attorneys (Comey, Pagliuca, Sternheim) regarding a jury note and testimony related to Exhibit 3505-005 given by witnesses 'Carolyn' and Special Agent Jason Richards. The judge notes that copies of the notes provided to counsel must be redacted because the jury foreperson signed them.
DOJ-OGR-00014661.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between attorneys Ms. Comey, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge regarding a document used for impeachment that is not formally in evidence. They discuss how to properly handle this situation, with the judge proposing a clarifying instruction for the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00014660.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge and counsel while the jury is not present. The conversation centers on two notes from the jury requesting testimony transcripts for individuals named Jane, Annie, and Carolyn, as well as an FBI deposition of Carolyn. The counsel confirms they are finalizing redactions before sending the documents to the jury via court staff.
DOJ-OGR-00014657.jpg
This document is the final page of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It records the conclusion of a day's proceedings, where the judge confirms with counsel, Ms. Moe 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-00014652.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. In it, the judge (THE COURT) outlines the logistical procedures for jury deliberations to the involved parties (Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Pagliuca, Mr. Everdell). The discussion covers the daily schedule for deliberations, the materials the jury will be given (instructions, verdict form, exhibits), and the roles of court staff in managing the process.
DOJ-OGR-00014651.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) recording a sidebar conference between the Judge and legal counsel (Moe, Menninger, Sternheim, Pagliuca). The discussion focuses on instructions for alternate jurors (specifically identifying jurors 125, 149, 151, 152, and 170), confirming they should remain 'on call' rather than stay in the building due to pandemic concerns, and setting parameters for evening deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00014584.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the final sentences of prosecutor Ms. Comey's closing argument, urging the jury to find the defendant guilty of sexual abuse of underage girls. Following this, the Court (Judge Nathan) begins reading the jury instructions (The Charge), specifically starting with Instruction No. 1 regarding the Role of the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00014561.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between a judge and several attorneys regarding the final preparations for trial exhibits. The counsel confirms that the exhibits have been reviewed by both the defense and the government and are ready for the jury. The judge provides instructions to mark the finalized list as a Court Exhibit.
DOJ-OGR-00011737.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between a judge and attorneys outside the presence of the jury. The attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell, discuss the logistics and timing of distributing binders of sealed exhibits to the jurors. They ultimately agree to place the binders under the jurors' chairs before they are needed for testimony.
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