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-00011716.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the opening statement of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that the accusers' memories are unreliable due to media influence and monetary incentives (False Memory Syndrome defense strategy). An objection by prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding Sternheim's characterization of investigators is sustained by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00011715.jpg
This document is a transcript of an opening statement, likely from Ghislaine Maxwell's defense attorney, Ms. Sternheim. The attorney argues that the four female accusers, who are using pseudonyms, are unreliable witnesses motivated by money ("a payday"). She claims their stories have changed over time, were only told after Epstein's death, and are based on flawed, contaminated memories, which will be discussed in expert testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00011714.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim. She describes Jeffrey Epstein's use of private jets as 'commuter jets' for a wide variety of guests, including friends, professionals, and girlfriends. Sternheim also outlines the relationship between Epstein and Ghislaine, stating that their personal 'companionship' ended, but Ghislaine continued to work for him as an employee.
DOJ-OGR-00011713.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim. She describes the relationship between Ghislaine and Epstein, stating it evolved from friendship to an employer-employee dynamic where Ghislaine managed his extensive real estate portfolio. The statement also outlines Epstein's lifestyle, including his various properties in Palm Beach, Santa Fe, and the Virgin Islands, and foreshadows testimony about their separate travels and Epstein's relationships with other women.
DOJ-OGR-00011712.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript of the opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim argues that while four accusers will testify, the evidence will not support the charges, and she attempts to humanize Maxwell by highlighting her education and skills. The text also frames Jeffrey Epstein's image in the 1990s as a successful, charismatic philanthropist to explain Maxwell's association with him.
DOJ-OGR-00011710.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) recording a sidebar conference during the opening statements of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Prosecutor Ms. Comey objects that the defense is improperly arguing the government is targeting the defendant, violating a pretrial ruling. The Court rules that while the defense cannot attack the prosecution's motives, they are permitted to argue that witnesses are using the defendant as a scapegoat or stand-in.
DOJ-OGR-00011709.jpg
This document is page 44 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, who argues that Ghislaine Maxwell is being used as a 'scapegoat,' 'target,' and 'stand-in' for the deceased Jeffrey Epstein to satisfy the anger of his victims. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz objects repeatedly during the statement.
DOJ-OGR-00011708.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of an opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The attorney argues that witness memories are faded and contaminated by media, and that Jeffrey Epstein manipulated everyone, including Maxwell. The text asserts that accusers were motivated or manipulated by civil attorneys seeking money and notes that testifying witnesses received millions of dollars from the Epstein Victim's Compensation Fund with minimal vetting.
DOJ-OGR-00011707.jpg
This document is a transcript of the defense's opening statement in the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. The defense attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues that the jury must focus solely on whether the government can prove the charges against Maxwell, not on the actions of Epstein. She characterizes the prosecution's case as weak, asserting it relies on the testimony of four accusers whose memories are unreliable, corrupted over 25 years, and motivated by a desire for money.
DOJ-OGR-00011690.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. The judge announces a 45-minute lunch break, stating that the court will resume with opening statements and adjourn at 5 p.m. After the jury is excused, the judge confirms with counsel, Ms. Comey and Ms. Sternheim, that there are no further matters to discuss before the recess.
DOJ-OGR-00011679.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a logistical delay in open court involving defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, prosecutor Ms. Comey, and the Judge regarding three jurors who are missing or delayed at the security line. The Judge discusses moving jurors between the first and fifth floors to manage the situation.
DOJ-OGR-00011678.jpg
This is page 13 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Court discusses procedural logistics for questioning jurors using a handheld mic and then moves to a sidebar conference to discuss a sealed issue regarding a witness testifying under a pseudonym. The transcript notes that pages 14 through 17 are sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00011677.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, involving the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. It records a procedural discussion between Defense Attorney Ms. Sternheim, Prosecutor Ms. Comey, and the Judge regarding the order of 'alternating strikes' during jury selection. The Judge agrees to allow the defense to start the process because they have ten strikes available.
DOJ-OGR-00011675.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Moe), the Defense (Ms. Sternheim), and the Judge regarding the placement of screens in the courtroom to ensure evidence shown to a witness is not visible to the public in the gallery. The prosecution expresses concern about visibility for their paralegal and the public, which the Defense addresses by clarifying seating arrangements.
DOJ-OGR-00011670.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a proceeding on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures a conversation between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Sternheim, and Mr. Everdell about trial logistics, specifically the seating of legal teams to ensure proper distancing and the methodology for presenting evidence to witnesses and jurors. Mr. Everdell explains they have prepared physical binders for witnesses but still hope to use electronic methods.
DOJ-OGR-00011664.jpg
This is the final page (43) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The proceedings conclude with the Judge instructing Ms. Comey (Government) and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) to confer regarding rebuttal witnesses and submit a letter by Saturday if there is a disagreement. The court adjourns for the Thanksgiving holiday.
DOJ-OGR-00011663.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing procedural discussions in a criminal case. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, requests and receives permission from the government and court to share Dr. Rocchio's testimony with two other witnesses, Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus. The court also sets a deadline of the upcoming Saturday for the government to provide its order-of-witness list and confirms with both the prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) that no plea offers have been communicated.
DOJ-OGR-00011661.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion during a final pretrial conference. The judge inquires about the exclusion of witnesses, and the government's counsel, Ms. Comey, clarifies that victims have a right to be present after testifying but other witnesses will be excluded. Another attorney, Ms. Menninger, then raises a related issue about the admissibility of accusers' prior inconsistent statements.
DOJ-OGR-00011630.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a debate between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, before the judge regarding a potential conflict of interest with a juror. The juror works at the same financial institution as a witness, and Ms. Moe proposes questioning the juror, while Ms. Sternheim argues against it as unnecessary and potentially prejudicial.
DOJ-OGR-00011629.jpg
This is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In the transcript, an attorney, Ms. Moe, raises a concern to the court about prospective Juror No. 93. Ms. Moe explains that this juror is an attorney at the same financial institution where a key trial witness works as an executive director, creating a potential conflict of interest that has been flagged for both the court and the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00011619.jpg
This document is page 100 of a court transcript filed on July 22, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Judge advises the defendant of their right to appeal the conviction and sentence within 14 days. The Court also discusses administrative matters, specifically setting the 'end of the conspiracy date' to July 2004 for the purpose of the judgment, to which neither the prosecution (Ms. Moe) nor the defense (Ms. Sternheim) objects at that moment.
DOJ-OGR-00011618.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a portion of a legal proceeding involving Ms. Maxwell. Her attorney, Ms. Sternheim, requests that she be placed at the BOP facility in Danbury and enrolled in the Female Integrated Treatment (FIT) program, which the court recommends to the Bureau of Prisons. The court also grants a motion from the government, represented by Ms. Moe, to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight and any underlying indictments against Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00011617.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on July 22, 2022, concerning the sentencing of Ms. Maxwell. Her counsel, Ms. Sternheim, argues that Ms. Maxwell cannot pay a fine because a bequest she was to receive is 'unactualized' and she has received no money from it. The Court acknowledges she hasn't received the bequest but determines that other 'additional assets' make her able to pay the fine, and subsequently imposes the sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00011614.jpg
This document is page 95 of a court transcript from the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell on July 22, 2022. The judge rejects Maxwell's claims regarding poor treatment at the MDC and lack of preparation time, noting a pattern of dishonesty and 'deflection of blame' consistent with her perjury in a civil deposition. While acknowledging that Maxwell and her attorney Ms. Sternheim expressed sympathy for the victims' suffering, the judge emphasizes that Maxwell failed to express acceptance of responsibility.
DOJ-OGR-00011612.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a sentencing hearing for Ms. Maxwell, filed on July 22, 2022. The judge discusses the factors influencing the sentence, acknowledging mitigating aspects such as Ms. Maxwell's age (over 60), lack of prior convictions, charitable work, and positive letters from family and a fellow inmate. However, the judge states that her 'decade-long pattern of predatory activity' justifies a substantial sentence, even if she is not considered a continuing danger to the public.
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