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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Trial | An opening statement is being given in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Recess | The court took a recess after Ms. Sternheim requested a two-minute break. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding the logistics for concluding a trial. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | A witness, Annie, is set to give testimony on the stand. | courtroom | View |
| N/A | Pretrial conference | A final pretrial conference is discussed, for which Mr. Pagliuca's absence is requested. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Direct examination of a witness named Kate, where she is questioned about a conversation with Max... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Testimony | An opening statement by Ms. Sternheim outlining what a witness named Kate is expected to testify ... | court | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The court proceeding documented in the transcript, discussing jury deliberation schedules. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial proceeding | An opening statement delivered by Ms. Sternheim in a trial, likely involving Ghislaine Maxwell. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court hearing | A hearing to discuss the jury's deliberation schedule. | courthouse | View |
| N/A | Meetings | The witness met with Ms. Sternheim six times before the current date. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of witness JANINE GILL VELEZ by Ms. Sternheim. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court scheduling discussion | Discussion regarding the court schedule, including jury presence, potential extended hours on Mon... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Opening statement by Ms. Sternheim in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. | courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion of COVID-19 Mask Protocols | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Meeting | A charging conference is scheduled for the 18th. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-11-17 | Closing arguments | The planned completion of closing arguments and the charge to the jury. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2025-11-17 | N/A | Court meeting to put parties' agreement on record regarding what goes back to the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-11-11 | Meeting | Proposed final pretrial conference. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2025-11-11 | Legal proceeding | Commencement of voir dire, tentatively scheduled to begin at 9 AM. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2025-09-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding the unsealing of letters and trial scheduling. | Open Court | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court proceeding | A court proceeding where logistical matters are discussed, including a party's absence from a fut... | N/A | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Court Hearing regarding logistical issues and Daubert motions | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court hearing | A discussion took place regarding the procedural ordering of statements from various parties, inc... | Courtroom | View |
| 2023-06-29 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where the judge discusses the forthcoming judgment, the end date of a conspiracy,... | Southern District Court (im... | 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Relevance of a question
Ms. Sternheim argues that the question is relevant because it sheds light on the witness's knowledge of what other accusers are doing.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests a sidebar to discuss matters related to a witness with anonymity status.
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.
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.
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.
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 argument regarding burden of proof and presumptio...
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.
Opening statement regarding 'Annie'
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.
Defense's argument against the credibility of accusers an...
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity