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-00016282.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys (Ms. Pomerantz, Ms. Menninger, Ms. Sternheim) and the judge. The core issue is the admissibility of a witness's prior statement, specifically the use of the word 'rape', with one side arguing it is highly prejudicial and the judge ultimately overruling the objection. The discussion highlights the strategic use of witness statements and the legal standards for evidence in a trial.
DOJ-OGR-00016182.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. It captures a procedural discussion between the judge (THE COURT) and attorneys (Ms. Comey, Mr. Everdell, Ms. Sternheim) while the jury is not present. The main topic is the logistical handling of binders containing sealed exhibits for the jury, with the parties agreeing to place them under the jurors' chairs before testimony begins.
DOJ-OGR-00016181.jpg
This document is a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the defense's argument, delivered by Ms. Sternheim, who emphasizes the government's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and reminds the jury of the presumption of innocence. After Ms. Sternheim concludes by contrasting Maxwell's presence with Jeffrey Epstein's absence, the judge calls for a 10-minute break before the government presents its first witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016180.jpg
This document is a transcript of a defense attorney's, Ms. Sternheim's, opening statement in a criminal case. She argues that the government's case is weak, lacks corroborating evidence, and relies on the thin stories of four accusers. Sternheim urges the jury to question the accusers' credibility, suggesting they have been influenced by lawyers, the media, and the prospect of significant financial rewards from the 'Epstein fund'.
DOJ-OGR-00016179.jpg
This document is a transcript of a defense attorney's, Ms. Sternheim's, opening statement in a criminal trial. She argues that the prosecution's case against Ghislaine, which alleges she enabled Epstein's bad behavior, will not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt because it lacks eyewitnesses and corroboration. Sternheim emphasizes that the jury will hear only secondhand stories and must consider the age of consent laws and the credibility of the accusers.
DOJ-OGR-00016177.jpg
This document is a transcript of an opening statement, likely from a defense attorney named Ms. Sternheim. She argues that an accuser, Carolyn, fabricated her story about Ghislaine's involvement, noting that Carolyn's initial lawsuits and FBI interview only mentioned Epstein and his assistant, Sarah Kellen. The attorney suggests that Carolyn's story changed to include Ghislaine only after Epstein's death, motivated by a multi-million dollar payment from a victim's fund.
DOJ-OGR-00016175.jpg
This document is a transcript of an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim in a legal case. The statement aims to undermine the credibility of a witness named Kate by portraying her as an ambitious socialite who willingly and eagerly maintained a decade-long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, even while he was incarcerated. The speaker suggests Kate's testimony against Ghislaine is suspect, especially since she only 'pointed the finger' after Epstein's death.
DOJ-OGR-00016173.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, containing an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim. The statement describes a girl named Annie who, at age 16, met Epstein in New York hoping for career support and later met Ghislaine for the first and only time in Santa Fe. The speaker asserts that nothing criminal occurred during the Santa Fe meeting and that Annie was above the age of consent in New Mexico at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00016172.jpg
This document is a court transcript of an opening statement by an attorney, Ms. Sternheim. She argues that a key witness, an actress named Annie, fabricated or embellished her story against the defendant, Ghislaine, only after Epstein's death and for financial gain, having received $5 million from the Epstein compensation fund. The attorney urges the jury to critically examine the witness's testimony, suggesting it is inconsistent and motivated by money.
DOJ-OGR-00016171.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Opening Statement by Ms. Sternheim) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the background of a witness named 'Jane,' describing her artistic upbringing, attendance at the Epstein-sponsored Interlochen program, and visits to Epstein's Palm Beach home with her mother and brothers. The defense argues that while Jane accepted flights from Epstein, nothing inappropriate occurred during their interactions, and notes she only decided to involve herself in the case after Epstein's death.
DOJ-OGR-00016170.jpg
This document is a transcript of an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim in a legal case involving claims against Epstein. Sternheim argues that the claims, unlike those in the September 11th compensation fund, are based on unreliable memories that will be challenged during the trial. She begins to describe the relationship between Epstein and an accuser named Jane, portraying him as a generous benefactor who financially supported Jane's musical education and living expenses in New York City.
DOJ-OGR-00016169.jpg
This document is a partial transcript of an opening statement delivered by Ms. Sternheim on August 10, 2022, in a case against Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Sternheim argues that the government is mischaracterizing lawful conduct as 'grooming' and highlights that witnesses testifying for the government have received substantial payments from the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund, suggesting a potential motive for their testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00016168.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on August 10, 2022. A lawyer, likely Ms. Sternheim, argues about the timing of a witness's testimony and the non-privileged nature of information provided in 2020, mentioning that a lawyer named Mr. Scarola handled interrogatories. Another lawyer, Ms. Comey, and the Judge discuss whether these are arguments for the jury, with the Judge noting the contention that the story has changed over time due to the involvement of civil lawyers.
DOJ-OGR-00016167.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It features a discussion between the Court and attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding opening statements. The Judge overrules an objection but questions the defense's basis for suggesting attorneys told witnesses what to say. Mr. Pagliuca argues that in 2008, a witness named Carolyn provided detailed interrogatories, depositions, and a complaint that did not include Ms. Maxwell, implying her later inclusion may have been influenced.
DOJ-OGR-00016165.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues regarding the admissibility of communications between witnesses' lawyers (specifically mentioning Mr. Scarola) and the government, citing an email where Scarola suggested ten interview topics for a witness named Carolyn. The discussion centers on whether these communications and proffers are privileged or if they can be used as evidence regarding the 'cultivating of stories'.
DOJ-OGR-00016164.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that lawyers representing witnesses should be callable as witnesses themselves because they attended 'proffer sessions' and coordinated with the government to build civil cases and settlements. The Judge prohibits Sternheim from mentioning this potential testimony in her opening statement because the defense failed to file a specific brief requesting permission to call these lawyers as witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00016162.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim, filed on August 10, 2022. Sternheim argues that the indictment against her client lacks sufficient evidence and eyewitness testimony, while portraying Jeffrey Epstein as a complex, manipulative, and secretive individual. She suggests Epstein's accusers had a financial motive, stating they have received "millions of dollars" after making their allegations.
DOJ-OGR-00016161.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a trial dated August 10, 2022. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, delivers part of an opening statement, arguing that the testimony of four upcoming female witnesses is unreliable because their memories could have been created by suggestive activities, media influence, and the incentive of monetary gain. Opposing counsel, Ms. Comey, successfully objects to one of Ms. Sternheim's claims, and the court instructs the jury to disregard the comment.
DOJ-OGR-00016160.jpg
This document is a court transcript of an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim, likely the defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim argues that the four accusers, using pseudonyms, have fabricated or altered their stories decades after the alleged events, particularly after Epstein's death, in order to get a "payday." She urges the jury to focus on the themes of memory, manipulation, and money, and states that expert testimony will be presented to show how memory is unreliable and can be contaminated over time.
DOJ-OGR-00016159.jpg
This document is a court transcript of an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim. She describes Jeffrey Epstein's private jets as a commuting service for a diverse group of influential people and clarifies the nature of Ghislaine Maxwell's relationship with Epstein, stating that she remained his employee after their personal companionship ended. Sternheim concludes by telling the court that the case will focus on the testimony of four women.
DOJ-OGR-00016158.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Opening Statement by Ms. Sternheim) filed on August 10, 2022. It describes Jeffrey Epstein's charismatic personality and asserts that Ghislaine Maxwell was his employee tasked with managing his luxury real estate portfolio, which operated like 'boutique hotels.' The text details Epstein's seasonal movements between Palm Beach, Santa Fe, and the Virgin Islands, and notes that he spent time and traveled with other women independent of Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00016157.jpg
This document is a transcript of the opening statement by Ms. Sternheim, the defense attorney for Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim argues that while four women will testify against Maxwell, the evidence will not support the charges. She portrays Maxwell as an accomplished and educated woman, urging the jury not to be biased by her privileged lifestyle, and introduces Jeffrey Epstein as a successful and philanthropic man whom Maxwell met in the 1990s.
DOJ-OGR-00016156.jpg
This document is a single page (page 46 of 106) from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text captures a brief procedural exchange where Ms. Comey assures the Court she will clarify she is referring to witnesses, followed by the Judge's acknowledgment. The page ends abruptly with a 'Continued on next page' marker.
DOJ-OGR-00016155.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing a sidebar conference. Prosecutor Ms. Comey objects to Defense Attorney Ms. Sternheim's opening statement, arguing it violates a pretrial ruling by suggesting the government is targeting the defendant. The Court rules that while the defense cannot question the prosecution's motives, they are permitted to argue that witnesses are treating the defendant as a 'scapegoat' or 'stand-in' (likely for Jeffrey Epstein, referred to as the 'empty chair').
DOJ-OGR-00016154.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, containing part of an opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim. She argues that her client, Ghislaine, is being unfairly targeted as a 'scapegoat' and 'convenient stand-in' for the deceased Jeffrey Epstein to satisfy victims seeking justice. The transcript shows another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, making objections that are overruled by the court.
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.
Witness Testimony Objection
Discussing objections to the relevance of testimony from upcoming witnesses called out of order.
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.
Format inquiry
Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jury Confusion
Argument that the jury mentioning New Mexico for a New York count indicates confusion not solved by simple referral.
Scheduling break
Let's get started. My plan was to break at 3:30.
Admissibility of lawyers as witnesses
A discussion between Ms. Sternheim and the Judge about whether lawyers who attended proffer sessions can be called as witnesses or if their testimony can be referenced.
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'.
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.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding fund application vetting for fraud.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests to raise an issue at sidebar with the Judge, and the Judge agrees.
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.
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.
Pending redaction issues
Spoke regarding pending redaction issues.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity