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-00018894.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. It captures the moment an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, concludes his questioning of a witness, Gill Velez, by pointing the jury to an exhibit labeled "father of child." Subsequently, another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, begins her cross-examination of the same witness.
DOJ-OGR-00018892.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness, Ms. Gill Velez. The testimony concerns the authentication of Government Exhibit 823, which is identified as a personnel action notice regarding the original hiring of Sky Roberts at Mar-a-Lago. The exhibit is admitted into evidence over an objection by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim.
DOJ-OGR-00018885.jpg
This document is page 23 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The dialogue involves a debate between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) regarding the admissibility of 'record 824' and the implications of testimony provided by Juan Alessi concerning the year 2001. The proceedings are paused by the Judge to wait for a juror experiencing train issues.
DOJ-OGR-00018883.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues against the admission of a school record (Government Exhibit 761) which identifies Mr. Epstein as a financial guarantor for a family, arguing the school did not verify that specific piece of information. The Court explains that the evidence was admitted to show that the family indicated Epstein was providing financial assistance at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00018882.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding dated August 10, 2022, discussing legal arguments related to factual records, employer practices, and the admissibility of evidence. Key points include an objection to Government Exhibit 761, a Professional Children's School application for Jane, due to unverified financial guarantor information, and the Court's ruling on the relevance of Mr. Epstein's alleged financial assistance to a witness's family. The discussion also touches upon legal precedents for adoptive business records.
DOJ-OGR-00018880.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a legal discussion between the Court and Ms. Sternheim about the 'Lieberman' case precedent. The core issue is the distinction between a form's existence and its content, with the Court stating that for the content to be admissible, there must be evidence of verification by the employer. Ms. Sternheim further argues that the current witness lacks the personal knowledge to testify about the procedures in question.
DOJ-OGR-00018877.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Rohrbach, and the Judge regarding the admission of exhibits 823 and 824, followed by a recess due to a juror's train delay. The Judge cites the case 'United States v. Lieberman' in relation to arguments about insurance cards and employer verification of employee information.
DOJ-OGR-00018876.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) likely related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The judge discusses the admissibility of insurance forms under the business records exception. Defense attorney Mr. Everdell raises a minor issue regarding a 'fourth witness' identified as Mr. Rogers, and the court prepares to break until the jury arrives.
DOJ-OGR-00018875.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, capturing a legal debate over whether employee insurance documents from Mar-a-Lago should be admitted as business records. Mr. Rohrbach argues they are retained for business purposes like potential disputes, while Ms. Sternheim contends they contain hearsay and are not integral to Mar-a-Lago's business. The judge concludes that testimony is required to establish a proper foundation before making a ruling.
DOJ-OGR-00018874.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues against admitting insurance requests as business records, stating they do not prove Virginia Roberts was employed by or present at Mar-a-Lago. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach clarifies the government's intent is to show Virginia Roberts was the dependent of Sky Roberts, who is confirmed to be a Mar-a-Lago employee.
DOJ-OGR-00018872.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) detailing legal arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence. Ms. Sternheim objects to documents based on relevance and foundation, arguing there is no tie between Virginia Roberts and Mar-a-Lago or the Trump company. Mr. Rohrbach argues the documents are relevant to connect the Virginia Roberts named on a birth certificate (daughter of Sky Roberts) to the individual present at Mar-a-Lago in the year 2000, corroborating testimony from Juan and Carolyn Alessi.
DOJ-OGR-00018871.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Sternheim is arguing before the Court regarding the admissibility of two documents (823 and 824) concerning an individual named Sky Roberts. The text reveals that Document 824 is an insurance record listing Sky Roberts' dependents, specifically identifying Virginia Roberts as his daughter.
DOJ-OGR-00018870.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a discussion between the Judge and attorneys regarding jury instructions concerning an alleged victim named 'Kate' and the applicability of New Mexico law. Additionally, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim anticipates the government calling Janine Gill as a witness, noting she has been employed by a property company related to the Trump Organization since 2007.
DOJ-OGR-00018816.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion about a witness's amended testimony. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, highlights that the witness later added they were transported in a private car provided by Jeffrey Epstein, arguing this change in memory is significant. The judge acknowledges the inconsistency, after which other attorneys discuss procedural matters like taking a break and the time remaining for cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018760.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the judge that he should be permitted to cross-examine a witness named Carolyn about her extensive psychiatric history and ongoing drug abuse, claiming she minimized these issues during direct examination. He specifically mentions her history of schizophrenia and having her children removed from her custody.
DOJ-OGR-00018759.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge and attorneys Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Pagliuca, and Ms. Menninger regarding trial procedure. The key topics are the timing of an objection to a potential witness's testimony and the estimated length of the cross-examination for the current witness, Carolyn, with the judge emphasizing the need for efficiency to not waste the jury's time.
DOJ-OGR-00018597.jpg
This document is an index of examination from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It outlines the examination of witnesses KATE, PATRICK McHUGH, KELLY MAGUIRE, and KIMBERLY MEDER by various attorneys, listing the page numbers for each direct, cross, redirect, and recross examination. The document also lists several government exhibits that were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018595.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a hearing on August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a legal argument between two lawyers, Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim, and the presiding judge regarding the defense's ability to cross-examine a witness about a photograph, referred to as exhibit 309. Ms. Moe states the witness, Kate, was shown the photo in a prior interview and that the defense was aware of this, countering the defense's claim that their rights were compromised.
DOJ-OGR-00018594.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys and a judge. The discussion centers on the admissibility of a photograph after a witness has left the stand, with one attorney, Ms. Sternheim, arguing that the government's failure to introduce the photo during testimony precluded her from a relevant line of cross-examination regarding the witness and the topic of nudity.
DOJ-OGR-00018478.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It captures the final cross-examination questions by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim to a witness named Kate regarding potential fraud in an application to a compensation fund. Following Kate's dismissal, prosecutor Ms. Moe calls the next government witness, Patrick McHugh, who is sworn in.
DOJ-OGR-00018477.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a portion of a cross-examination of a witness named Kate regarding her U visa status. During the proceeding, attorney Ms. Sternheim moves to admit Exhibits K-8 and K-10, which the court accepts under seal to protect the witness's identity.
DOJ-OGR-00018475.jpg
This document is page 138 of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim cross-examines a witness named Kate regarding her memory of being asked to wear a uniform and an alleged conversation with Ghislaine about 'St. Trinian's,' which the witness does not recall. The prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) successfully objects to questions about costumes as being 'beyond the scope' of redirect.
DOJ-OGR-00018474.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the testimony of a witness named Kate. Under questioning by Ms. Pomerantz, Kate explains that money received from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund represented recognition of her pain and truth, rather than just financial gain, and she explicitly denies having a financial stake in the outcome of the current trial. The page concludes with Ms. Sternheim beginning recross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018466.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a conversation between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Pomerantz, and Ms. Sternheim about the admissibility of email evidence. The judge rules that the dates of the emails can be presented to the jury, but the content and subject matter must be redacted, and information identifying a witness must be sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00018465.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues for the admission of evidence showing the dates a female witness ('she') maintained contact via email with a male subject ('him') to prove a relationship existed after the events in question. The prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) argues that the witness already admitted to the dates, making the evidence cumulative.
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.
Format inquiry
Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory.
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.
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.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests to raise an issue at sidebar with the Judge, and the Judge agrees.
Pending redaction issues
Ms. Moe informed the court that she had spoken with Ms. Sternheim that morning about the redaction issues being discussed.
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.
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.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests a sidebar to discuss matters related to a witness with anonymity status.
Relationship between Ghislaine and Epstein, and Epstein's...
Ms. Sternheim describes Epstein's charisma and his relationship with Ghislaine, which evolved from friendship to her becoming his employee managing his real estate portfolio. She details his various properties and travel habits, and mentions that Epstein spent time with other women without Ghislaine.
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 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.
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 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.
Relevance objection
Ms. Sternheim objects to evidence based on relevance and foundation as a business record.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity