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-00014834.jpg
This document is page 87 of the sentencing transcript for Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It captures the conclusion of Maxwell's statement to the court, followed by procedural discussions between the Judge, defense counsel Ms. Sternheim, and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding supervised release conditions and restitution. The court notes that while Count Six carries mandatory restitution, the government agrees none should be ordered as victims have already been compensated.
DOJ-OGR-00014828.jpg
This document is page 81 of a court transcript from the sentencing hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 22, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that the government's requested sentence is disproportionate and notes that the Probation Department recommended a downward variance to 20 years. Sternheim explicitly argues that Jeffrey Epstein was 'far more culpable' than Maxwell, yet would have faced the same sentencing guidelines.
DOJ-OGR-00014802.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 22, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Judge (The Court), Ms. Moe, and Ms. Sternheim regarding the order of statements for an upcoming session, specifically coordinating when victims and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, will speak. The court sets the order as government, victims, defense counsel, and then Ms. Maxwell, before taking a lunch recess until 1:00 PM.
DOJ-OGR-00014752.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, detailing a portion of a hearing. The judge confirms with the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, and her counsel, Ms. Sternheim, that they have reviewed and discussed the presentence report. The transcript also notes that another attorney, Mr. Everdell, will handle objections for the defense, and confirms with counsel Ms. Moe that a court order was posted online.
DOJ-OGR-00014751.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 22, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. In this excerpt, the judge confirms with counsels Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim that all submissions have been filed and received. The judge then specifically asks Ms. Moe, representing the government, to confirm what has been done to notify crime victims under the Justice For All Act, to which Ms. Moe responds that six impacted individuals have been notified through their counsel about the sentencing and their right to be heard.
DOJ-OGR-00014750.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the sentencing hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 22, 2022. The Court lists various documents reviewed for sentencing, including support letters for Maxwell, a forensic psychiatric evaluation, a letter from an MDC inmate regarding Maxwell's tutoring, and numerous victim impact statements from individuals including Annie Farmer, Virginia Giuffre, and Sarah Ransome. Counsel for both sides confirm the record of submissions before the court.
DOJ-OGR-00008414.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case, filed on December 17, 2021. It captures a dialogue between the judge and two defense counsel, Ms. Sternheim and Ms. Menninger, regarding the scope of their opening statements. The defense argues that the government's indictment includes a conspiracy charge involving unnamed individuals, which makes evidence beyond the four main accusers relevant to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00008413.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing dated December 17, 2021, in the case against Ms. Maxwell. The prosecution, represented by Ms. Moe, is arguing that the defense should be precluded from introducing statements from other alleged victims unless they first formally proffer which witnesses they intend to call. The government contends this is necessary to prevent the introduction of inappropriate hearsay evidence during opening statements or cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00008353.jpg
This document is the final page (43) of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on December 10, 2021. The transcript records the adjournment of the proceedings, with the Judge instructing Ms. Comey (Government) and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) to confer regarding rebuttal witnesses and submit a letter by Saturday if there is disagreement. The court adjourns for the Thanksgiving holiday with plans to reconvene the following Monday.
DOJ-OGR-00008352.jpg
This court transcript from a pretrial conference on December 10, 2021, documents several procedural discussions. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, successfully requests a limited exclusion from Rule 615 to allow his witnesses (Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus) to review another witness's (Dr. Rocchio's) testimony. The court also establishes a deadline for the government to provide its witness list and confirms with both the prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) that no plea offers have been communicated.
DOJ-OGR-00008318.jpg
This court transcript from December 10, 2021, captures a discussion where attorney Ms. Moe informs the court of a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Moe explains that prospective Juror No. 93 is an attorney at the same financial institution where a key trial witness is an executive director, and that this issue has also been flagged for the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00008261.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing filed on December 8, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. During the proceeding, counsel for the government, Ms. Comey, informs the court they are working to identify a defense witness as the case approaches trial. After the court adjourns the hearing until the 23rd, an unidentified speaker raises a lingering issue regarding the jury selection (voir dire) process related to a specific employer, which is to be discussed at sidebar.
DOJ-OGR-00008253.jpg
This court transcript from December 8, 2021, captures a discussion between a judge and attorneys regarding jury selection. The judge sets a goal of qualifying 50-60 jurors and clarifies the procedure for conducting private sidebars with jurors, which will be limited to one attorney per side to protect confidential information. The attorneys ask questions to understand these courtroom procedures.
DOJ-OGR-00021044.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a portion of a legal proceeding. The judge (THE COURT) informs a party of their appellate rights, discusses issuing a post-trial order, and establishes July 2004 as the official end date for a criminal conspiracy. Counsel, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, acknowledge the court's statements and indicate they have no objections, though Ms. Moe reserves the right to submit a letter if the date conflicts with the sentencing transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00020913.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a procedural argument between counsel. Government counsel Ms. Moe pushes for a quick, by-Friday deadline for a post-trial briefing on an issue concerning Juror 50's testimony. Opposing counsel Ms. Sternheim argues for a two-week extension, citing the issue's importance and an upcoming trial she is starting on the 16th. The judge acknowledges the issue's significance but appears to favor a more expedited schedule.
DOJ-OGR-00020912.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) involving the questioning (voir dire) of a potential juror. The text covers a sidebar conference where defense counsel (Ms. Sternheim) requests the Judge ask the juror if they read the case summary, specifically regarding the charges. The Judge then reads a portion of the indictment summary to the juror, stating that the defendant is charged with conspiring with and aiding Jeffrey Epstein to entice minors between 1994 and 2004.
DOJ-OGR-00020906.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge and attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Sternheim, Ms. Moe) about a potential juror. The conversation focuses on the juror's questionnaire answers, his past as a victim of sexual abuse, and his interactions with a journalist named Lucia, questioning his understanding of the public consequences and his ability to be an impartial juror.
DOJ-OGR-00020905.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing dated February 28, 2023, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Defense attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell are arguing before the Judge that a specific juror (referred to as 'he') demonstrated bias and dishonesty by publicly discussing his own history of sexual abuse and his role in the trial on Facebook and to victim Annie Farmer, despite claiming during selection he didn't want to share that history. The Court agrees to ask the juror to reconcile his claim of privacy with his public media engagement.
DOJ-OGR-00020904.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a legal argument about jury selection. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, requests to ask a juror more detailed follow-up questions about their history of sexual abuse to assess potential bias, but the Court denies the request. Another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, then questions the judge about the information provided to the juror regarding the nature of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00020903.jpg
This document contains pages 27 and 28 of a court transcript designated 'M38TMAX1'. It details a sidebar conference following the questioning of 'Juror 50' regarding his history of sexual abuse and ability to be impartial. Attorney Mr. Everdell argues for further questioning regarding the juror's 'healing process' and self-identification as a victim to ensure he can be impartial in a sexual abuse case, while Ms. Moe proposes questions about the juror's adherence to the questionnaire process.
DOJ-OGR-00020891.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on February 28, 2023, regarding 'Juror 50' from the 'United States v. Maxwell' case. The judge confirms with both the juror and his attorney, Mr. Spodek, that the juror will invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to questions about his jury service. The judge also rules that the juror may continue to be referred to as 'Juror 50' to protect his anonymity, consistent with his actions in post-verdict press interviews.
DOJ-OGR-00020846.jpg
This court transcript from February 28, 2023, captures a legal debate about how to properly instruct a jury. The jury is confused about 'Count Four', which involves a violation of New York law, but they are asking about flights to New Mexico. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim present their arguments to the judge on whether simply referring the jury back to the original instructions is sufficient to clear up the apparent jurisdictional confusion.
DOJ-OGR-00020845.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorneys (Menninger, Sternheim, Everdell) regarding how to answer an ambiguous jury question related to 'Count Four' and 'Element 2'. The defense argues that without evidence of intent for sexual activity on a return flight, the jury cannot convict.
DOJ-OGR-00020834.jpg
This document is a court transcript from February 28, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge and counsel. The court reads a note from the jury requesting to end deliberations at 5 p.m. and then facilitates a discussion among the lawyers, including defense counsel Ms. Sternheim and another counsel, Ms. Moe, who proposes referring the jury to a specific instruction.
DOJ-OGR-00018897.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the beginning of the direct examination of a witness named Shawn by an attorney, Ms. Comey. During the testimony, Shawn spells his first name and identifies Government Exhibit 20 as a copy of his ID.
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.
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.
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.
Witness Testimony Objection
Discussing objections to the relevance of testimony from upcoming witnesses called out of order.
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.
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.
Jury Scheduling
Discussion regarding jury deliberation schedule over holidays and COVID-19 protocols.
Redirect examination
Asking if testimony would differ if called by the government.
Relevance objection
Ms. Sternheim objects to evidence based on relevance and foundation as a business record.
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.
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.
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 of Mr. Alessi's testimony
Argument regarding inferences drawn from employment status versus physical presence of a child in 2001.
Defendant's decision to testify
Judge confirms with attorney Sternheim that she has advised her client regarding the right to testify.
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.
Format Inquiry
Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory to the Court.
Witness Schedule
Confirming the defense will not call Mr. Hamilton.
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.
Admissibility of insurance form content
Discussion regarding hearsay, the Lieberman case, and verification of employee information.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity