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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-03-11 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where the relevance of a prior interview and the motivations of an individual are... | courtroom | View |
| 2022-03-11 | N/A | Court Hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-03-11 | Court proceeding | A hearing during jury selection where attorneys and the judge discuss the scope of follow-up ques... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-03-11 | N/A | Court hearing/Sidebar in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-03-11 | N/A | Court hearing regarding post-trial briefing and redactions in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghisl... | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-03-11 | Court proceeding | A colloquy in open court regarding a questionnaire filled out by an individual, likely a potentia... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-03-11 | N/A | Court hearing regarding juror misconduct/inquiry | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-02-24 | N/A | Jury selection/Voir dire proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Court proceeding (voir dire) | The court questions a prospective juror, Juror No. 50, about their personal background, including... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2021-12-29 | Court adjournment | The court proceeding was adjourned to December 29, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. | N/A | View |
| 2021-12-28 | Court adjournment | The court session was adjourned to December 28, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-22 | Court adjournment | A court proceeding was adjourned to December 22, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. | N/A | View |
| 2021-12-21 | Court adjournment | The court proceedings were adjourned to December 21, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-21 | Court adjournment | A court proceeding was adjourned until the following day, December 22, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-21 | Court proceeding | Court was adjourned to December 21, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-17 | Court hearing | A court hearing where the government argues that the defense should be required to proffer the ba... | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-17 | Court hearing | A pre-trial or in-trial discussion between the judge and counsel regarding the scope of opening s... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2021-12-17 | N/A | Sidebar Conference | Side bar | View |
| 2021-12-10 | Pretrial conference | A court hearing where procedural matters were discussed, including an exception to witness seques... | Courtroom (unspecified) | View |
| 2021-12-10 | N/A | Court Hearing Adjournment | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2021-12-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding preliminary instructions for witnesses and a potential conflict o... | Court in the Southern Distr... | View |
| 2021-12-08 | Court hearing | A court hearing was held to discuss trial readiness, witness identification, and a voir dire issu... | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-08 | Court proceeding | A discussion about the process of jury selection (voir dire), specifically the target number of q... | courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-07 | N/A | Court Adjournment | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-12-02 | N/A | Adjournment of the court session to this date at 8:45 a.m. | Courtroom (SDNY) | 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'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.
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.
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.
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 Arguments
Argument regarding sentencing guidelines, probation recommendations, and culpability comparison between Maxwell and Epstein.
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.
Exhibit Identification
Exchange regarding identifying exhibit K-8 / 3513-019.
Jury Confusion
Argument that the jury mentioning New Mexico for a New York count indicates confusion not solved by simple referral.
Redirect examination
Asking if testimony would differ if called by the government.
Relevance of Mr. Alessi's testimony
Argument regarding inferences drawn from employment status versus physical presence of a child in 2001.
Witness Schedule
Confirming the defense will not call Mr. Hamilton.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding CV detail and compensation.
Format Inquiry
Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory to the Court.
Proffer of Expert Witness
Sternheim requests that Loftus be recognized as an expert in memory science; Judge agrees subject to prior rulings.
Scheduling break
Let's get started. My plan was to break at 3:30.
Admissibility of Documents 823 and 824
Discussion regarding a personal action notice for Sky Roberts and insurance documents listing his dependents.
Pending redaction issues
Spoke regarding pending redaction issues.
Cross-examination
Questions regarding memory, wearing uniforms, and conversations with Ghislaine.
Defendant's decision to testify
Judge confirms with attorney Sternheim that she has advised her client regarding the right to testify.
Admissibility of Evidence
Discussion regarding Exhibits 823 (employment notice) and 824 (insurance document) concerning Sky Roberts.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity