Ms. Sternheim
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Professor Loftus
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Elizabeth Loftus
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mulligan
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Elizabeth Loftus
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Loftus
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Opposing counsel |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Co counsel implied |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jury
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ghislaine
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Lundberg
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Representation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Co counsel defense |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
THE WITNESS (Loftus)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Defense counsel implied |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Loftus
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Hamilton
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Besselsen regarding a document from 1996. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion was held to determine if a witness who tested positive for COVID could testify remot... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the court and counsel regarding the logistics for closing arguments, specifi... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding the admissibility of witness 'Matt's' testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Loftus in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Trial Resumed | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding jury instructions for a case involving an alleged victim named Ka... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the admissibility of Government Exhibit 824, specifically w... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A legal argument during a trial regarding the use of the word 'rape' in witness testimony. Attorn... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | During a trial, the judge and counsel discuss jury instructions and a note received from the deli... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion during a court hearing regarding the scope of cross-examination of a witness named C... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion during a court hearing about testimony related to exhibit 3505-005 and a request for... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court hearing for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, during which legal arguments were made regarding an o... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place concerning an objection to the admission of Government Exhibit 761, s... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument during a court proceeding about the relevance of cross-examination questions dir... | courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness named Jane during a court case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). | open court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | An opening statement was made by Ms. Sternheim on behalf of her client, Ghislaine Maxwell, in cas... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument occurred between an attorney (Ms. Sternheim) and the judge (The Court) over an e... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion in court regarding a request for a witness, who has contracted COVID and is quaranti... | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding jury questions on Count Four (transportation count) and jurisdiction ... | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness named Kate regarding her involvement in movies listed on a documen... | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where legal arguments are being made regarding evidence, witness testimony, an... | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding trial logistics, including seating arrangements for lawyers to ma... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion in court to clarify the schedule and witnesses for an upcoming day of the trial. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Discussion of Exhibits 823 and 824 | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00011600.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, capturing a defense attorney's argument during a sentencing hearing. The attorney, Ms. Sternheim, asks the Court for a sentence below the recommended guidelines, arguing the government's request is disproportionate and that the more culpable Jeffrey Epstein would have faced the same sentencing guidelines as her client, Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00011598.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on July 22, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. A victim, Ms. Stein, delivers a powerful impact statement describing how Maxwell's actions affected her for 25 years and calls for Maxwell to be imprisoned. Following the statement, another individual, Ms. Sternheim, addresses the court to speak to the victims.
DOJ-OGR-00011574.jpg
This is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion about the order of statements. Counsel Ms. Moe asks the judge if victims should speak before or after the main parties. The judge clarifies the intended sequence is government, victims, defense counsel, and then Ms. Maxwell, to which all parties present agree before the court takes a luncheon recess.
DOJ-OGR-00011523.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated July 22, 2022, involving Ms. Sternheim (defense) and Ms. Moe (government). The proceedings cover administrative confirmations of filings on ECF and a substantive discussion regarding the government's compliance with the 'Justice For All Act.' Specifically, Ms. Moe confirms that the government has notified six victims, proven at trial to be impacted, about the upcoming sentencing and their right to be heard.
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.
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.
Scheduling concerns
Asking if there are concerns regarding the Friday morning session plan.
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.
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
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 Arguments
Defense argues for a lower sentence, citing the probation department's recommendation and comparing Maxwell's culpability to Epstein's.
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.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding fund application vetting for fraud.
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.
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 (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.
Procedural discussion regarding demonstrative evidence
Discussion regarding the use of digital equipment to simulate a whiteboard due to COVID restrictions and whether a photograph of the work should be preserved for the record.
Jury Confusion
Argument that the jury mentioning New Mexico for a New York count indicates confusion not solved by simple referral.
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.
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
Ms. Sternheim describes the circumstances of Annie's meetings with Epstein in New York and Ghislaine in Santa Fe when Annie was 16.
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.
Clarification on questioning a witness
Ms. Sternheim corrected Ms. Pomerantz, stating her intended question was not about the ex-husband but about whether the witness had asked a friend to plant drugs on the father of her child.
Defense's opening statement regarding Jeffrey Epstein.
Ms. Sternheim argues that there is a lack of evidence and no eyewitnesses to support the indictment's charges. She characterizes Epstein as a mysterious, manipulative man who attracted powerful people and suggests his accusers have financially benefited from their claims.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests to raise an issue at sidebar with the Judge, and the Judge agrees.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity