Ms. Sternheim
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Professor Elizabeth Loftus
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Besselsen
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Conrad
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CHRISTIAN EVERDELL
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Laura Menninger
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Pagliuca
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness
|
Cross examiner potential |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANINE GILL VELEZ
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
DANIEL ALAN BESSELSEN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Conrad
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ghislaine
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Professor Loftus
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CHRISTIAN EVERDELL
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Laura Menninger
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Pagliuca
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the Judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 |
| 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-00011736.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the conclusion of an address by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, who argues that Ghislaine Maxwell should be found not guilty and distinguishes her from Jeffrey Epstein. The page concludes with the Judge (The Court) ordering a 10-minute break before the government calls its first witness, indicating this is likely the end of opening statements.
DOJ-OGR-00011735.jpg
This document is page 83 (filed page 70) of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), featuring the opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim. She argues that the government's case relies on 'stitching together' the stories of four accusers which cannot stand on their own. Sternheim urges the jury to question the accusers' credibility, suggesting their testimony is influenced by media, lawyers, and financial payouts from the 'Epstein fund.'
DOJ-OGR-00011730.jpg
This document is a court transcript of an opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim regarding a witness named 'Kate'. The text characterizes Kate as an ambitious former actress and model who maintained a decade-long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, including sending him emails and photos while he was incarcerated. The defense argues Kate was above the age of consent in all relevant jurisdictions (UK, NY, FL) and implies her testimony may be unreliable due to admitted drug use.
DOJ-OGR-00011729.jpg
This document is a court transcript of an opening statement by an attorney, Ms. Sternheim. She attempts to discredit a witness named Annie by highlighting inconsistencies in her behavior, such as not believing she was a victim until later and keeping boots allegedly bought by Epstein for 25 years. Sternheim also points to a $1.5 million settlement Annie received as a potential motive for her testimony, and argues the events in New Mexico are not relevant to the indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00011728.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, containing part of an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim. The statement describes a young woman named Annie who, at age 16, met Jeffrey Epstein in New York and later traveled to Santa Fe, where she met Ghislaine for the only time. The speaker asserts that nothing criminal occurred during the Santa Fe trip and that Annie was above the age of consent in New Mexico.
DOJ-OGR-00011727.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim, likely a defense attorney. Sternheim argues that a key witness is an unreliable, professional actress who only implicated "Ghislaine" after Epstein's death in order to receive a $5 million payment from the Epstein victim's fund. The attorney urges the jury to be skeptical of the upcoming testimony, highlighting alleged financial motivations and inconsistencies.
DOJ-OGR-00011726.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Ghislaine Maxwell trial) containing the opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim. The text details the background of a witness referred to as 'Jane,' describing her artistic upbringing, attendance at the Epstein-sponsored Interlochen program, and visits to Epstein's Palm Beach home where 'nothing amiss happened.' It notes that Jane accepted flights paid for by Epstein but initially refused involvement in the criminal case prior to his 2019 arrest, only changing her mind after his death.
DOJ-OGR-00011725.jpg
This document is page 60 of a court transcript (Opening Statement by Ms. Sternheim) filed on August 10, 2022, likely from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense argues that unlike the 9/11 fund, the Epstein compensation fund claims were based on 'unreliable' memories. The text focuses on an accuser named 'Jane,' describing Epstein as a 'benefactor' who paid for her professional schooling, vocal lessons, and a Wall Street apartment where she lived with her family.
DOJ-OGR-00011724.jpg
This document is page 59 of a court transcript (filed 08/10/22) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that the government is applying 'hindsight bias' to lawful conduct like shopping or movies, relabeling it as 'grooming.' She further argues that prosecution witnesses are financially motivated, claiming they receive money from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund and enhance their payouts by cooperating with the government.
DOJ-OGR-00011723.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing legal arguments about privileged communications. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues that answers to interrogatories and a complaint are not privileged, while another attorney, Ms. Comey, begins to dispute the accuracy of a deposition. The judge rules that arguments about a witness's story changing over time due to the involvement of civil lawyers are matters to be presented to a jury.
DOJ-OGR-00017428.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski. The excerpt captures a brief exchange between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Sternheim about the estimated remaining time for the proceeding. The judge also informs Ms. Sternheim that they have requested the courtroom temperature be raised for her comfort.
DOJ-OGR-00017427.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, during a break in proceedings where the jury and witness are not present. The dialogue covers procedural and environmental matters, including a counsel's request to raise the courtroom temperature and the judge asking another counsel for a time estimate for questioning before announcing a 10-minute recess.
DOJ-OGR-00017361.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts the moment the judge thanks and discharges the jury following the verdict. Defense counsel Ms. Sternheim requests the court wait on the presentence report and explicitly asks for a court order to ensure Ms. Maxwell receives a COVID-19 booster shot.
DOJ-OGR-00017355.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In it, the judge confirms the jury's deliberation schedule, which includes holidays, and reads a note from the jury requesting the transcripts of expert witness Elizabeth Loftus. Counsel then raises an issue regarding the transcript of Cimberly Espinosa.
DOJ-OGR-00014479.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The judge denies a request for a mistrial concerning evidence about phone numbers, stating the admission was for a limited purpose. The court then calls for a 20-minute luncheon recess, after which a technical difficulty with a non-working screen is reported.
DOJ-OGR-00014475.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. After the jury is dismissed for lunch, an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, raises an objection to the judge concerning a statement made by opposing counsel, Ms. Moe. Ms. Sternheim argues that Ms. Moe's assertion during closing arguments—that a massage table originating from California affects interstate commerce—is legally inaccurate and unsupported by evidence presented in the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00014407.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures the beginning of the closing arguments phase, where the Judge outlines the schedule: Ms. Moe will present for the government, followed by a lunch break, and then Ms. Menninger will present for the defense. The page concludes with the Judge introducing Ms. Moe to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00014363.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion about jury instructions. Counsel argues that the jury should be instructed not to convict based solely on the testimony of a witness named Kate, a point with which the Court agrees. Following a brief request between counsel members, the judge calls for a 10-minute recess.
DOJ-OGR-00017607.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It records a conversation between the judge, a government attorney (Ms. Moe), and another attorney (Ms. Sternheim) concerning the testimony of an upcoming witness. The judge acknowledges their points and adjourns the court until 8:45 a.m. on December 1, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00017602.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. Prosecutors are arguing to admit the testimony of a witness named 'Matt,' who was in a relationship with a victim named 'Jane' starting in 2007. Matt is expected to testify that Jane told him her family struggled financially during her childhood and mentioned an 'uncle' who paid for things, implying a cover story for abuse or grooming.
DOJ-OGR-00011722.jpg
A transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Judge that they should be allowed to suggest witnesses were manipulated by civil attorneys, citing a witness named 'Carolyn' whose detailed 2008 legal filings and depositions did not mention Ms. Maxwell, implying her involvement was fabricated later. The Court overrules the objection to this line of argumentation at the opening stage but asks for evidence that attorneys explicitly told witnesses what to say.
DOJ-OGR-00011720.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) where attorney Mr. Pagliuca discusses the admissibility of evidence regarding communications between witnesses' lawyers and the government. Specifically, Pagliuca mentions an email from attorney Mr. Scarola to the government suggesting ten topics for an interview with a woman named Carolyn. The discussion centers on whether these communications (proffers and emails) are privileged and how they will be introduced without calling the lawyers as witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00011719.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between Ms. Sternheim and the Judge. Ms. Sternheim argues that lawyers who attended proffer sessions with the government can be considered witnesses, but the Judge denies this, stating that such an action would have required a specific briefing that was never submitted. The core issue is the admissibility of testimony from these lawyers during the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011718.jpg
This is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a sidebar conference during a trial. The defense counsel, Ms. Sternheim, claims in her opening statement that witnesses' memories were manipulated by their civil lawyers, prompting an objection from the prosecution, Ms. Comey and Ms. Moe. Ms. Moe argues to the judge that introducing evidence about lawyer-client conversations is inappropriate and that the issue of subpoenaing these lawyers had already been raised.
DOJ-OGR-00011717.jpg
This document is page 52 of a court transcript (Document 741, filed Aug 10, 2022) featuring the opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Sternheim argues there is a lack of documentation or eyewitnesses to corroborate the government's charges. She characterizes Jeffrey Epstein as a wealthy, mysterious 'manipulator' comparable to James Bond, who lived a compartmentalized life with specific eccentricities, and alleges that accusers are motivated by financial gain ('shaking the money tree').
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.
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 Testimony Objection
Discussing objections to the relevance of testimony from upcoming witnesses called out of order.
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 Arguments
Argument regarding sentencing guidelines, probation recommendations, and culpability comparison between Maxwell and Epstein.
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.
Exhibit Identification
Exchange regarding identifying exhibit K-8 / 3513-019.
Defendant's decision to testify
Judge confirms with attorney Sternheim that she has advised her client regarding the right to testify.
Admissibility of Insurance Records
Argument regarding whether insurance forms constitute business records and what inferences can be drawn regarding Virginia Roberts.
Redirect examination
Asking if testimony would differ if called by the government.
Relevance of Mr. Alessi's testimony
Argument regarding inferences drawn from employment status versus physical presence of a child in 2001.
Admissibility of insurance form content
Discussion regarding hearsay, the Lieberman case, and verification of employee information.
Pending redaction issues
Spoke regarding pending redaction issues.
Admissibility of Documents 823 and 824
Discussion regarding a personal action notice for Sky Roberts and insurance documents listing his dependents.
Scheduling break
Let's get started. My plan was to break at 3:30.
Witness Schedule
Confirming the defense will not call Mr. Hamilton.
Jury Confusion
Argument that the jury mentioning New Mexico for a New York count indicates confusion not solved by simple referral.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding CV detail and compensation.
Scheduling
Requesting to wait until tomorrow.
Proffer of Expert Witness
Sternheim requests that Loftus be recognized as an expert in memory science; Judge agrees subject to prior rulings.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity