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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court proceeding with the jury not present, where the judge calls for a recess and then a new w... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding the admission of email evidence. The judge rules that the dates o... | Courtroom (unspecified) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion took place regarding jury instructions, followed by the court calling a recess. | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion to determine the procedure for alternating peremptory strikes during jury selection. | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Final pretrial conference | A discussion was held regarding the exclusion of witnesses from testimony under Federal Rule of E... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Mr. Rohrbach concludes his questioning of witness Gill Velez by directing the jury to Government ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument between attorneys and a judge regarding whether Government Exhibit 824, containi... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where the government rested its case and the judge conducted a colloquy with t... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Jury dismissal | The court confirmed a unanimous jury verdict and formally dismissed the jury from service, provid... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Discussion regarding Dr. Loftus's opinions on suggestive questioning, Agent Young's testimony, a ... | N/A | 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 proceeding | A court hearing where attorneys and the judge discuss an amendment to a witness's testimony and p... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where attorneys argue the relevance of evidence. The case number is 1:20-cr-00330... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion was held regarding a courthouse mask mandate and the fulfillment of requests for evi... | courthouse | 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 proceeding | A court hearing, specifically a redirect examination of a witness named Jane, followed by a discu... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Meeting | Ms. Sternheim and Ms. Moe conferred during a break in the court proceedings. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the admissibility of information on a form. The discussion ... | Southern District Court (im... | 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 | Court proceeding | A sidebar discussion between the judge and counsel with the jury not present, where the judge mad... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court session | An afternoon session of a court proceeding where attorneys discuss exhibits and make requests to ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A sidebar discussion during a court hearing or trial, specifically during the cross-examination o... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | An opening statement was delivered by Ms. Sternheim in the case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | Court | 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 | Court recess | The court takes a 45-minute luncheon recess. Proceedings are scheduled to resume with opening sta... | 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
Defense argues for a lower sentence, citing the probation department's recommendation and comparing Maxwell's culpability to Epstein's.
Opening Statement
Ms. Sternheim describes the circumstances of Annie's meetings with Epstein in New York and Ghislaine in Santa Fe when Annie was 16.
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.
Objection to closing argument statement
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.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests to raise an issue at sidebar with the Judge, and the Judge agrees.
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.
Pending redaction issues
Ms. Moe informed the court that she had spoken with Ms. Sternheim that morning about the redaction issues being discussed.
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'.
Opening Statement (Defense)
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.
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.
Relevance objection
Ms. Sternheim objects to evidence based on relevance and foundation as a business record.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity