Ms. Sternheim
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Professor Loftus
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Elizabeth Loftus
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Mulligan
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Elizabeth Loftus
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Loftus
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Opposing counsel |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Co counsel implied |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jury
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ghislaine
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Lundberg
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Representation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Co counsel defense |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
THE WITNESS (Loftus)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Defense counsel implied |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Loftus
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
The government
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Hamilton
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-12-01 | Court adjournment | The court session was adjourned to reconvene on December 1, 2021, at 8:45 a.m. | Courtroom | View |
| 2021-04-01 | N/A | Court Hearing | Court (Southern District) | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court testimony | Catherine M. Conrad is called as a witness, granted use immunity after asserting her Fifth Amendm... | Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Juror No. 1 (Catherine Conrad). Discussion of her Fifth Amendment rights,... | Southern District Courtroom | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court session/inquiry | Afternoon session of a court inquiry, addressing matters that developed over the luncheon recess,... | Court | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Meeting | Ms. Conrad met with Ms. Sternheim a total of six times. | N/A | View |
| 2012-02-15 | Court hearing | A court hearing to discuss an application to close the courtroom for the testimony of Ms. Conrad,... | courtroom | View |
| 2008-10-22 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding jury questions and scheduling. | Courtroom | View |
| 2008-10-22 | N/A | Conclusion of Defense Opening Statement | Courtroom | View |
| 2008-10-22 | N/A | Procedural discussion during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell regarding witness scheduling and cros... | Courtroom | View |
| 0023-12-01 | N/A | Jury Deliberations | Jury Room | View |
| 0022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing date of the transcript. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 0022-08-10 | N/A | Court Filing | Southern District (implied NY) | View |
| 0022-08-10 | N/A | Sidebar conference during trial where the Government officially rests its case. | Courtroom (Sidebar) | View |
| 0022-08-10 | N/A | Court Hearing regarding Opening Statements | Courtroom | 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.
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.
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 Testimony Objection
Discussing objections to the relevance of testimony from upcoming witnesses called out of order.
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 Arguments
Argument regarding sentencing guidelines, probation recommendations, and culpability comparison between Maxwell and Epstein.
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.
Exhibit Identification
Exchange regarding identifying exhibit K-8 / 3513-019.
Defendant's decision to testify
Judge confirms with attorney Sternheim that she has advised her client regarding the right to testify.
Admissibility of Insurance Records
Argument regarding whether insurance forms constitute business records and what inferences can be drawn regarding Virginia Roberts.
Redirect examination
Asking if testimony would differ if called by the government.
Relevance of Mr. Alessi's testimony
Argument regarding inferences drawn from employment status versus physical presence of a child in 2001.
Admissibility of insurance form content
Discussion regarding hearsay, the Lieberman case, and verification of employee information.
Pending redaction issues
Spoke regarding pending redaction issues.
Admissibility of Documents 823 and 824
Discussion regarding a personal action notice for Sky Roberts and insurance documents listing his dependents.
Scheduling break
Let's get started. My plan was to break at 3:30.
Witness Schedule
Confirming the defense will not call Mr. Hamilton.
Jury Confusion
Argument that the jury mentioning New Mexico for a New York count indicates confusion not solved by simple referral.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding CV detail and compensation.
Scheduling
Requesting to wait until tomorrow.
Proffer of Expert Witness
Sternheim requests that Loftus be recognized as an expert in memory science; Judge agrees subject to prior rulings.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity