Ms. Sternheim
PersonRelationship Network
| 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 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding trial schedule, closing arguments, and jury deliberation timing relati... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court Recess pending verdict | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court proceeding sidebar or argument regarding courtroom logistics and COVID protocols. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Opening statement by Ms. Sternheim defending Ghislaine Maxwell | Open Court | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding three missing jurors who are stuck on the security line or unaccounted for o... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing regarding upcoming sentencing and review of the presentence report. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Jury Selection (Voir Dire) for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of witness 'Kate' | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Reading of Jury Note regarding Count Four | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Janine Gill Velez | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Reading of Jury Note | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness 'Kate' regarding exhibits 3513-014. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding jury deliberation schedule and closing arguments | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Sentencing hearing where the judge discusses factors for punishment. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court proceedings discussing jury instructions and a question from the jury regarding Count Four. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | Discussion of the trial schedule. The defense case is set to begin on the 16th. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Closing arguments are anticipated for the 20th or 21st. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Witness Kate is questioned by Ms. Pomerantz about a visit to Maxwell's house and is shown Governm... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | A court hearing to discuss the schedule for jury deliberations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court examination | Cross-examination of DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN by Ms. Sternheim, starting on page 2242. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Future court hearing | The court scheduled the next session for the 23rd of the month. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Trial | An upcoming trial that Ms. Sternheim is scheduled to start on the 16th of the month. | Unspecified | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Examination of witness KATE, including direct, cross, redirect, and recross. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The judge discusses jury deliberation scheduling with counsel, sends a note to the jury, takes a ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Court examination | Cross-examination of witness DANIEL ALAN BESSELSEN by Ms. Sternheim. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018463.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Court regarding the admissibility of evidence—specifically an email—under the doctrine of 'past recollection recorded.' The Judge questions what specific details the witness failed to recall that would necessitate admitting the prior record.
DOJ-OGR-00018462.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a legal exchange between Ms. Sternheim (Defense) and Ms. Pomerantz (Prosecution) regarding an exhibit labeled 'Defendant's K-8' or '3513-019'. Ms. Pomerantz begins a legal argument citing the 'recorded recollection rule' as an exception to hearsay.
DOJ-OGR-00018461.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz discuss the admissibility and origin of two exhibits: a visa application bearing the name 'Kate' (Exhibit K-9) and emails between a witness and Mr. Epstein (Exhibit K-7). Ms. Pomerantz clarifies that the visa form was provided by the witness's counsel during a previous meeting to discuss visa status.
DOJ-OGR-00018460.jpg
This document is a court transcript from an afternoon session on August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Moe, confirms with the court and opposing counsel, Mr. Everdell, an agreement regarding the '900 series' of exhibits. Following this, another attorney, Ms. Sternheim, begins to make a request for the court to order the government to disclose certain information.
DOJ-OGR-00018457.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, questions Kate about her employment in the music industry and her limited knowledge of the requirements for a U visa, specifically its connection to being a victim of a crime. After the questioning concludes, another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, requests a break from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00018455.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) documenting the cross-examination of a witness named Kate by Ms. Sternheim. The questioning focuses on Kate's immigration status, specifically her request to the government for a 'U visa' (often used for victims of crimes assisting law enforcement) and the renewability of her current 'exceptional' visa. Kate confirms she met with the government approximately 10 times to prepare for her testimony and requested an inquiry into the U visa.
DOJ-OGR-00018453.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate by an attorney, Ms. Sternheim. Ms. Sternheim introduces an exhibit labeled 'Defendant's K9' and questions Kate, directing her to find and confirm her 'true name' within the document.
DOJ-OGR-00018452.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. The questioning focuses on whether Kate has applied for a U visa, a special visa for victims who assist the government. Kate states she made an inquiry but is unsure if she filled out an application and explicitly denies wanting the U visa.
DOJ-OGR-00018449.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a cross-examination of a person named Kate. The questioning covers a $1,200 payment for therapy and Kate's familiarity with a man named Ray Hamilton, whom she describes as an acquaintance and a friend of a friend, known both in 'the states' and London.
DOJ-OGR-00018444.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Kate in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The witness admits to initiating contact with Jeffrey Epstein in 2011, asking to stay with him in New York, and maintaining contact with him via email over the years. Conversely, the witness confirms she had no email correspondence with Ghislaine Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00018442.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named 'Kate' by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim. The questioning focuses on establishing that the witness maintained email correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein in 2008 (regarding pictures) and in 2011, even after he had been in jail.
DOJ-OGR-00018441.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate. The questioning, led by Ms. Sternheim, focuses on Kate's correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein while he was in jail. Kate confirms the correspondence, admits she told Epstein she would send pictures (but denies actually sending them), and confirms she signed her letters with 'Best love always, Kate'.
DOJ-OGR-00018436.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named 'Kate' by Ms. Sternheim. The questioning focuses on a past custody dispute, allegations of planting drugs (which are denied), and the witness's 'acquaintanceship' with a man connected to the Royal Family during the late 1990s, specifically mentioning an interaction at the Cannes Film Festival.
DOJ-OGR-00018433.jpg
This document is a court transcript of a sidebar discussion from a trial, filed on August 10, 2022. During the cross-examination of a witness named Kate, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim is questioned by the judge about the relevance of asking about the witness leaving her husband to travel with Ghislaine and Jeffrey Epstein. Opposing counsel, Ms. Pomerantz, objects to the line of questioning, arguing it is suggestive and should have been raised as a '412 issue'.
DOJ-OGR-00018418.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate by an attorney, Ms. Sternheim. The questioning concerns Kate's filmography, referencing specific numbered items on a list and the IMDB system. An objection for lack of foundation is made by another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, which the court sustains.
DOJ-OGR-00018417.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate by an attorney, Ms. Sternheim. The questioning focuses on Kate's past acting career, specifically her roles as an extra. The examination is interrupted by a procedural issue when Ms. Sternheim refers to an exhibit, 'defense K7', which is missing from the binders of both the witness and the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00018410.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Kate by a lawyer, Ms. Sternheim. The questioning focuses on Kate's prior testimony about admiring a person named Ghislaine and probes into the wealth of her family, specifically her mother and her stepfather, who owned a private plane.
DOJ-OGR-00018409.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. It details a sidebar discussion regarding '3500 material' where a prosecutor argues for the right to ask redirect questions about a witness's history as a domestic violence victim if defense attorney Ms. Sternheim raises the issue. The judge agrees, the witness is recalled, and the jury is brought back in.
DOJ-OGR-00018408.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a sidebar discussion where a judge rules to exclude evidence of a single sexual harassment allegation due to a lack of a pattern or proffer of falsity. Following the ruling, two attorneys, Ms. Pomerantz and Ms. Sternheim, discuss a planned line of questioning for a witness. Ms. Sternheim clarifies her intent is not to ask about the witness's ex-husband, but rather to ask if the witness had requested a friend to plant drugs on the father of her child.
DOJ-OGR-00018407.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion before the direct examination of a witness named Kate. Counsel, Ms. Sternheim, requests a sidebar with the Judge to address matters concerning the witness's anonymity status. The Court agrees, and the subsequent pages of the transcript are sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00018401.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Kate. She explains that she continued to communicate with an individual named Epstein throughout her twenties and early thirties, maintaining a 'friendly' tone. Kate states her reasons for doing so were fear of disengaging and a reluctance to acknowledge past events, and that she eventually stopped communicating with him in her early thirties.
DOJ-OGR-00018389.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Kate. Kate testifies that Ghislaine Maxwell told her about Jeffrey Epstein's sexual preferences, stating he liked 'cute, young, pretty' girls and that he 'needed to have sex about three times a day'. This testimony suggests Maxwell's role in communicating Epstein's sexual demands and grooming potential victims.
DOJ-OGR-00016909.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. The transcript captures the conclusion of the government's case, as confirmed by Ms. Comey, and the subsequent colloquy between the judge and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell. The judge formally advises Ms. Maxwell of her right to testify or not to testify, stressing that the decision is hers alone, despite any advice from her attorneys.
DOJ-OGR-00016896.jpg
This document is page 167 of a court transcript (Document 763) filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The page captures the moment a recess is called immediately after Ms. Sternheim acknowledges a statement regarding a 'right to testify or not testify.' The majority of the page is blank as the proceedings continued on the next page.
DOJ-OGR-00016880.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Menninger, Everdell, Sternheim, and Moe). The discussion clarifies that a 'short matter' scheduled for the following Monday is the testimony of a witness from London. A potential issue is raised by Ms. Moe, who states that the witness's name was not on the witness list provided to the government.
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