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 proceeding | A court proceeding with the jury not present, where the judge calls for a recess and then a new w... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding the admission of email evidence. The judge rules that the dates o... | Courtroom (unspecified) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion took place regarding jury instructions, followed by the court calling a recess. | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion to determine the procedure for alternating peremptory strikes during jury selection. | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Final pretrial conference | A discussion was held regarding the exclusion of witnesses from testimony under Federal Rule of E... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Mr. Rohrbach concludes his questioning of witness Gill Velez by directing the jury to Government ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument between attorneys and a judge regarding whether Government Exhibit 824, containi... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where the government rested its case and the judge conducted a colloquy with t... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Jury dismissal | The court confirmed a unanimous jury verdict and formally dismissed the jury from service, provid... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Discussion regarding Dr. Loftus's opinions on suggestive questioning, Agent Young's testimony, a ... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding jury matters, including a response from the jurors, a confirmatio... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where attorneys and the judge discuss an amendment to a witness's testimony and p... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where attorneys argue the relevance of evidence. The case number is 1:20-cr-00330... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion was held regarding a courthouse mask mandate and the fulfillment of requests for evi... | courthouse | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Admission of evidence | Government Exhibit 17 was received in evidence under seal to protect the identity of the witness. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court hearing, specifically a redirect examination of a witness named Jane, followed by a discu... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Meeting | Ms. Sternheim and Ms. Moe conferred during a break in the court proceedings. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the admissibility of information on a form. The discussion ... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Ms. Sternheim delivers an opening statement in court case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A sidebar discussion between the judge and counsel with the jury not present, where the judge mad... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court session | An afternoon session of a court proceeding where attorneys discuss exhibits and make requests to ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A sidebar discussion during a court hearing or trial, specifically during the cross-examination o... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | An opening statement was delivered by Ms. Sternheim in the case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | A sidebar conversation during a court case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE) to discuss the admissibility of te... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court recess | The court takes a 45-minute luncheon recess. Proceedings are scheduled to resume with opening sta... | Courtroom | 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.
Format inquiry
Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory.
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.
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 (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.
Scheduling
Requesting to wait until tomorrow.
Pending redaction issues
Ms. Moe informed the court that she had spoken with Ms. Sternheim that morning about the redaction issues being discussed.
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.
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.
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.
Admissibility of Documents 823 and 824
Discussion regarding a personal action notice for Sky Roberts and insurance documents listing his dependents.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests to raise an issue at sidebar with the Judge, and the Judge agrees.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests a sidebar to discuss matters related to a witness with anonymity status.
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
Ms. Sternheim describes the circumstances of Annie's meetings with Epstein in New York and Ghislaine in Santa Fe when Annie was 16.
Admissibility of lawyers as witnesses
A discussion between Ms. Sternheim and the Judge about whether lawyers who attended proffer sessions can be called as witnesses or if their testimony can be referenced.
Preclusion from cross-examination
Ms. Sternheim argues that the government's decision not to use a photograph while a witness was on the stand prevented her from cross-examining the witness about nudity, a topic she considered relevant.
Jury Confusion
Argument that the jury mentioning New Mexico for a New York count indicates confusion not solved by simple referral.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity