Ms. Sternheim
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Professor Elizabeth Loftus
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Besselsen
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Conrad
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CHRISTIAN EVERDELL
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Laura Menninger
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Pagliuca
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness
|
Cross examiner potential |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANINE GILL VELEZ
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
DANIEL ALAN BESSELSEN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Conrad
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ghislaine
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Professor Loftus
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CHRISTIAN EVERDELL
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Laura Menninger
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Pagliuca
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the Judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Cross-examination of a witness named Kate regarding her application for a U visa. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding jury matters, including a response from the jurors, a confirmatio... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A sidebar discussion occurred during an opening statement in a trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) reg... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Meeting | Ms. Sternheim and Ms. Moe conferred during a break in the court proceedings. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 745 into evidence | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A cross-examination of a witness named Visoski, during which the judge and attorneys discuss the ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Meeting | Attorneys were instructed to confer to narrow issues of disagreement. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court recess | The court proceeding broke for a one-hour lunch break. | Courtroom (implied) | 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 hearing / direct examination | Ms. Moe questions a witness (Matt) about conversations with 'Jane' regarding money received from ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Counsel and the court discuss pre-opening instructions and a potential issue with a prospective j... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the judge and counsel regarding a note from the jury and the schedule for fu... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion in court regarding the scheduling of closing arguments and a charge conference, cont... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A legal argument took place regarding the use of extrinsic evidence to impeach the testimony of a... | Courtroom | 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 | Court hearing | A discussion during a court hearing regarding the admissibility of testimony from lawyers who att... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the judge and attorneys during a break in a trial, with the jury not present. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion took place regarding procedural matters before calling a witness and the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Jury dismissal | The judge confirmed the unanimous verdict with Juror No. 119 and Juror No. 7, and then dismissed ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Ms. Sternheim delivers an opening statement in court case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Trial | Opening statements are being delivered to the jury in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. | courtroom | 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 | Court hearing | A discussion took place regarding the procedural rules for the length and scope of the closing an... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Admission of evidence | Government Exhibit 17 was received in evidence under seal to protect the identity of the witness. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court proceeding for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE involving the direct examination of a witness named... | 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.
Format inquiry
Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory.
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.
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.
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.
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 and Fines
Discussion regarding the imposition of a fine, the status of a bequest in a will, and the formal imposition of the sentence.
Request to speak
Request to stand at the podium and address the victims directly.
Sentencing Arguments
Argument regarding sentencing guidelines, probation recommendations, and culpability comparison between Maxwell and Epstein.
Sentencing Arguments
Defense argues for a lower sentence, citing the probation department's recommendation and comparing Maxwell's culpability to Epstein's.
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.
Evidentiary objection regarding witness credibility
A dialogue between Ms. Sternheim and the Court regarding the legal basis for an objection to testimony. The Court argues that since Ms. Sternheim's side attacked a witness's credibility regarding her upbringing, the opposing side can bring in evidence to support it. The Court presses Ms. Sternheim for the specific rule (e.g., Relevance, 403) underpinning her objection.
Scope of witness testimony
MS. STERNHEIM and THE COURT discuss the allowable scope of a witness's testimony. The Court rules to limit the testimony to issues from cross-examination that pertain to attacking the credibility of an unnamed woman.
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.
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.
Court proceedings
Ms. Sternheim responds to the Court's questions and begins to address the Court on a matter before being instructed to use the microphone.
Relevance objection
Ms. Sternheim objects to evidence based on relevance and foundation as a business 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.
Description of Epstein's private jets and relationship wi...
Ms. Sternheim describes Epstein's private jets as a form of high-style commuting for a wide array of people, including friends, celebrities, and politicians. She also outlines the evolution of Ghislaine's relationship with Epstein, from a companion to solely an employee, and states the case will center on four women.
Jury Scheduling
Discussion regarding jury deliberation schedule over holidays and COVID-19 protocols.
Admissibility of insurance form content
Discussion regarding hearsay, the Lieberman case, and verification of employee information.
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.
Courtroom Temperature
Ms. Sternheim asks the Judge if the temperature can be raised because it is very cold. The Court responds that they are sweating but will get it raised.
Witness's memory and knowledge of media coverage
Ms. Sternheim questions Mr. Mulligan about his ability to recall events from over 25 years ago, his conversations with Ms. Farmer, and his awareness of media and documentaries related to the case and Ms. Farmer.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity