Trove
Sign In Sign Up

Ms. Sternheim

Person
Mentions
877
Relationships
86
Events
390
Documents
429
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

Event Timeline

Interactive Timeline: Hover over events to see details. Events are arranged chronologically and alternate between top and bottom for better visibility.
86 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
organization The Court
Legal representative
19 Very Strong
25
View
person Mr. Everdell
Co counsel
13 Very Strong
11
View
person Ms. Maxwell
Client
13 Very Strong
11
View
person Ms. Comey
Opposing counsel
12 Very Strong
10
View
person MS. POMERANTZ
Opposing counsel
12 Very Strong
11
View
person Kate
Professional
10 Very Strong
6
View
person MR. ROHRBACH
Professional
10 Very Strong
14
View
person Judge
Professional
10 Very Strong
13
View
organization The Court
Professional
10 Very Strong
116
View
person MS. POMERANTZ
Professional
10 Very Strong
7
View
person Ms. Maxwell
Professional
10 Very Strong
8
View
person Ms. Moe
Professional
10 Very Strong
13
View
person Mr. Everdell
Professional
10 Very Strong
6
View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Professional
10 Very Strong
6
View
person MR. PAGLIUCA
Professional
10 Very Strong
5
View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Client
9 Strong
5
View
person Ms. Moe
Professional adversarial
9 Strong
5
View
person Ms. Comey
Professional
9 Strong
5
View
person Loftus
Legal representative
8 Strong
4
View
person MR. ROHRBACH
Opposing counsel
8 Strong
4
View
person GHISLAINE MAXWELL
Legal representative
8 Strong
4
View
person MS. MENNINGER
Professional
8 Strong
4
View
person Gill Velez
Professional
7
3
View
person MR. PAGLIUCA
Co counsel
7
3
View
person Ms. Conrad
Professional
7
2
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
2022-08-10 Court hearing A legal argument took place in court regarding the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, focusing on evidence r... Courtroom View
2022-08-10 Court proceeding A discussion between the judge and attorneys regarding closing arguments, jury instructions, and ... Courtroom View
2022-08-10 Court hearing A court proceeding to discuss narrowing the scope of an affidavit and to plan the logistics and t... Courtroom (unspecified) View
2022-08-10 Court proceeding A discussion during a court proceeding regarding the scope of a witness's testimony about a woman... Courtroom in the Southern D... View
2022-08-10 Court hearing A legal argument took place regarding the admissibility of insurance records as evidence of emplo... Courtroom (implied) View
2022-08-10 Cross-examination Ms. Sternheim cross-examines witness Mr. Mulligan in court. Courtroom (implied) View
2022-08-10 Court hearing A legal argument takes place before a judge regarding an objection to testimony. Mr. Rohrbach obj... Courtroom View
2022-08-10 Court hearing A discussion in court regarding a defense subpoena, negotiations with the government over redacti... Courtroom View
2022-08-10 Court proceeding A court proceeding involving the cross-examination of a witness named Visoski. Courtroom View
2022-08-10 Recess The Court announces a recess for approximately 10 minutes. Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Court proceeding in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Maxwell) Southern District of New Yo... View
2022-08-10 N/A Direct examination of Dr. Loftus in court case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Courtroom (Southern Distric... View
2022-08-10 N/A Direct examination of Professor Loftus regarding memory malleability. Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Court Testimony - Redirect Examination of Mr. Mulligan Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Court proceedings regarding evidence admission and legal citations. Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell ... Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Admission of Government's Exhibit 741 (GX-741) into evidence. Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Direct examination of Professor Loftus in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Court hearing discussing logistical arrangements for a witness infected with COVID-19. Courtroom (Southern Distric... View
2022-08-10 Cross-examination Cross-examination of Kate regarding money for therapy and her acquaintance with Ray Hamilton. N/A View
2022-08-10 Opening statement Ms. Sternheim delivers an opening statement in a legal case against Ms. Maxwell, discussing the g... court View
2022-08-10 N/A Court proceedings regarding objections to cross-examination tactics and sealing of the record. Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Court proceedings regarding jury selection logistics and COVID-19 protocols. Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Court proceeding discussing the admissibility of Exhibits 823 and 824 regarding Virginia Roberts'... Courtroom (Southern Distric... View
2022-08-10 N/A Court proceeding regarding jury scheduling. 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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
55
As Recipient
5
Total
60

Checking on Mr. Hamilton's availability

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: Mr. Hamilton

The Court instructs Ms. Sternheim to 'make that call' to check on Mr. Hamilton's availability, and she confirms she is doing so.

Phone call
N/A
Communication Source

Witness Testimony Objection

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Discussing objections to the relevance of testimony from upcoming witnesses called out of order.

Dialogue
N/A
Communication Source

Format inquiry

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory.

Courtroom dialogue
N/A
Communication Source

Scheduling concerns

From: THE COURT
To: Ms. Sternheim

Asking if there are concerns regarding the Friday morning session plan.

Court proceeding
N/A
Communication Source

Confidentiality for Ms. Conrad's testimony

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

A letter submitted by Ms. Sternheim regarding Ms. Conrad's confidentiality, medical conditions, disciplinary proceedings, and intention to assert her Fifth Amendment right.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Witness's positive COVID test

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

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.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Sentencing Arguments

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Argument regarding sentencing guidelines, probation recommendations, and culpability comparison between Maxwell and Epstein.

Court proceeding
2023-06-29
Communication Source

Request to speak

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Request to stand at the podium and address the victims directly.

Meeting
2023-06-29
Communication Source

Sentencing and Fines

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Discussion regarding the imposition of a fine, the status of a bequest in a will, and the formal imposition of the sentence.

Meeting
2023-06-29
Communication Source

Sentencing of Ms. Maxwell

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["THE COURT", "Judge N...

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.

Courtroom dialogue
2023-06-29
Communication Source

Sentencing Arguments

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Defense argues for a lower sentence, citing the probation department's recommendation and comparing Maxwell's culpability to Epstein's.

Meeting
2022-08-22
Communication Source

Request for a sidebar

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["Judge"]

Ms. Sternheim requests to raise an issue at sidebar with the Judge, and the Judge agrees.

Courtroom dialogue
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Pending redaction issues

From: Ms. Moe
To: Ms. Sternheim

Ms. Moe informed the court that she had spoken with Ms. Sternheim that morning about the redaction issues being discussed.

Spoken conversation
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Opening Statement

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Ms. Sternheim describes the circumstances of Annie's meetings with Epstein in New York and Ghislaine in Santa Fe when Annie was 16.

Court testimony
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Cross-examination regarding exhibit 'Defendant's K9'

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["Kate", "THE COURT"]

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'.

Court testimony
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Opening Statement (Defense)

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: Members of the jury

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.

Courtroom statement
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Request for a sidebar

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["The Court"]

Ms. Sternheim requests a sidebar to discuss matters related to a witness with anonymity status.

Court proceeding dialogue
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Relationship between Ghislaine and Epstein, and Epstein's...

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: Court/Jury (implied)

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
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Opening statement regarding 'Annie'

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

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.

Court testimony
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Defense argument regarding burden of proof and presumptio...

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["Jury"]

Ms. Sternheim argues to the jury that the government has the burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, mentions the presumption of innocence, and contrasts the presence of Ghislaine Maxwell with the absence of Jeffrey Epstein.

Courtroom address
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Defense's argument against the credibility of accusers an...

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: Court/Jury (implied)

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.

Opening statement
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Relevance of a question

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["The Court"]

Ms. Sternheim argues that the question is relevant because it sheds light on the witness's knowledge of what other accusers are doing.

Court dialogue
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Relevance objection

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["The Court"]

Ms. Sternheim objects to evidence based on relevance and foundation as a business record.

Court dialogue
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Court proceedings

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["The Court"]

Ms. Sternheim responds to the Court's questions and begins to address the Court on a matter before being instructed to use the microphone.

Courtroom dialogue
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Testimony of next witness, Matt

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["The Court"]

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.

Court dialogue
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search