Ms. Sternheim

Person
Mentions
877
Relationships
86
Events
390
Documents
429

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 N/A Court proceedings regarding finalization of the verdict sheet and jury charges in Case 1:20-cr-00... Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Filing of court document 761 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Court View
2022-08-10 N/A Court proceeding regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Discussio... Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Ghislaine Maxwell formally waives her right to testify in her own defense. Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Court testimony in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Sidebar conference during Opening Statements Courtroom Sidebar View
2022-08-10 N/A Jury dismissal scheduling Courtroom 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 N/A Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Discussion rega... Courtroom (Southern Distric... View
2022-08-10 N/A Court proceeding sidebar conference Courtroom Sidebar View
2022-08-10 N/A Medical Request Courtroom - Request for COV... View
2022-08-10 Court proceeding An opening statement by Ms. Sternheim in the trial of Ghislaine, where she argues that her client... Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Court testimony of witness Loftus regarding memory science. Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell context implie... Southern District of New Yo... View
2022-08-10 N/A Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Conclusion of Professor Loftus's testimony Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial) Southern District Court View
2022-08-10 N/A Sidebar conference in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Courtroom (Sidebar) View
2022-08-10 N/A Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Maxwell). Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Discussion cent... Southern District Court View
2022-08-10 N/A Sidebar conference during opening statements in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. Courtroom Sidebar View
2022-08-10 N/A Courtroom discussion regarding logistics of presenting evidence on screens. Courtroom (Southern District) View
2022-08-10 N/A Court testimony in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Expert witness Lo... Courtroom View
2022-08-10 N/A Court proceedings regarding jury instructions and upcoming witness testimony. Courtroom (Southern Distric... View
2022-08-10 N/A Filing of Document 741 (Transcript of Opening Statement) Court (Southern District) 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

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

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

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
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

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

Scheduling concerns

From: THE COURT
To: Ms. Sternheim

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

Court proceeding
N/A

Format inquiry

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory.

Courtroom dialogue
N/A

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

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

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

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

Request to speak

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

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

Meeting
2023-06-29

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

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

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

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

Scheduling

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Requesting to wait until tomorrow.

Court dialogue
2022-08-10

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

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

Objection to closing argument statement

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

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.

Court dialogue
2022-08-10

Cross-examination of Gill Velez

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["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.

Court testimony
2022-08-10

Admissibility of Documents 823 and 824

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Discussion regarding a personal action notice for Sky Roberts and insurance documents listing his dependents.

Court proceeding
2022-08-10

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

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

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

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

Admissibility of lawyers as witnesses

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

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.

Court dialogue
2022-08-10

Preclusion from cross-examination

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

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.

Court dialogue
2022-08-10

Jury Confusion

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Argument that the jury mentioning New Mexico for a New York count indicates confusion not solved by simple referral.

Meeting
2022-08-10

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity