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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Sentencing Hearing for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Court filing date of the transcript document. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Courtroom discussion regarding logistics of presenting evidence on screens. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing of court document 761 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Discussion of Exhibits 823 and 824 | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Trial Resumed | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Recess pending verdict | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Discussion on Deliberation Schedule | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing date of the court transcript document. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court Recess | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Discussion regarding witne... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding opening statements and admissibility of arguments about witness coaching. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Conclusion of testimony for witness 'Kate'. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing date for the transcript document. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of Professor Loftus in court regarding memory stages. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing of transcript | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing of Document 741 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding jury selection procedure (alternating strikes). | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Closing Arguments (Summation Phase) | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings (Direct examination of Parkinson) | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings without the jury present. Discussion regarding the provision of transcripts to ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding jury charges and closing arguments. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Discussion of evidence... | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Opening statement delivered by Ms. Sternheim in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00016153.jpg
This document is an excerpt from an opening statement by Ms. Sternheim in a trial, likely involving Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. It details how Jeffrey Epstein manipulated individuals, including Ghislaine, over 15 to 25 years ago. The statement also discusses how Epstein's estate established a compensation fund from which accusers received millions of dollars, and how these women easily included Ghislaine Maxwell in their claims, implying the focus should remain on Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00016152.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court proceeding, specifically the opening statement by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Sternheim argues that the jury must focus solely on Maxwell's alleged actions, not Epstein's, and contends the government's case is built on the unreliable testimony of four accusers whose memories have been corrupted over time and who are motivated by money.
DOJ-OGR-00016151.jpg
This document is a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the transition from the prosecution's opening statement to the defense's, delivered by Ms. Sternheim. Ms. Sternheim begins her defense by arguing that Maxwell is being unfairly scapegoated for the actions of Jeffrey Epstein, emphasizing that while Epstein's conduct is central to the case, Maxwell is a separate individual who should not be conflated with him.
DOJ-OGR-00016136.jpg
This document is a court transcript from an afternoon session on August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. Before the jury is brought in, the judge confirms with attorneys Ms. Pomerantz and Ms. Sternheim that there are no preliminary matters. The judge then announces that overflow courtrooms have been successfully set up to ensure public access, thanking the district executive's and clerk's offices for their assistance.
DOJ-OGR-00016135.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where the judge announces a 45-minute lunch recess. The judge instructs the jury, notes that proceedings will resume with opening statements and end at 5 p.m., and confirms with counsel Ms. Comey and Ms. Sternheim that there are no other matters to address before breaking.
DOJ-OGR-00016124.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. The dialogue captures a procedural delay where the Judge (The Court) informs counsel (Ms. Sternheim and Ms. Comey) that three jurors are missing and unaccounted for at the security line. The Judge proposes moving a juror from the first floor to the fifth floor to manage the situation while confirming that attempts are being made to call the missing jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00016122.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion between the judge, Ms. Sternheim, and Ms. Comey. The parties are establishing the order for alternating peremptory strikes during jury selection. The judge decides that the defense will start and outlines the sequence of strikes, a method agreed upon by both the defense and the government.
DOJ-OGR-00016121.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between the judge and several attorneys (Moe, Comey, Sternheim). The discussion centers on logistical delays as they wait for all jurors to pass through a security check. Ms. Sternheim asks for and receives confirmation from the judge that the overflow rooms for the jurors are located on the first and fifth floors.
DOJ-OGR-00016120.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text details a discussion between attorneys (Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim) and the Judge regarding the logistics of projecting evidence on screens for a witness. The primary concerns raised are ensuring the government can follow the proceedings and preventing the public gallery from viewing the screens to maintain privacy.
DOJ-OGR-00016115.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the court and lawyers Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell. The conversation focuses on courtroom logistics, such as arranging lawyers in a 'backup team' for social distancing, and the mechanics of presenting evidence, including physical binders for witnesses and folders for jurors, alongside a request to use electronic evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016114.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The presiding judge outlines the procedure for finalizing jury selection, swearing in the jury, and commencing opening statements, with specific attention paid to social distancing rules for unvaccinated jurors. Attorneys Ms. Comey (Government) and Ms. Sternheim (Defense) are present, with Ms. Sternheim raising a protocol question regarding sidebars.
DOJ-OGR-00021645.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, detailing a discussion between the judge (THE COURT) and two counsels (Ms. Moe and Ms. Sternheim). The judge outlines post-trial housekeeping matters, including the defendant's right to appeal within 14 days, and states the Court's intention to set the conspiracy end date as July 2004 in the final judgment. Ms. Moe acknowledges this, noting she will review the records and submit a letter if there is a discrepancy with the sentencing transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00021644.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) regarding the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. During the proceeding, Maxwell's attorney, Ms. Sternheim, requests that Maxwell be designated to the BOP women's facility in Danbury and enrolled in the FIT (Female Integrated Treatment) program to address trauma. The Court agrees to make this recommendation and subsequently grants the government's motion, presented by Ms. Moe, to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight.
DOJ-OGR-00021643.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the sentencing hearing of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 22-1426) dated June 29, 2023. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that a bequest in a will mentioned by the court is 'unactualized' and Maxwell has received nothing. The Court acknowledges this but concludes Maxwell has 'additional assets' sufficient to pay the fine and proceeds to formally impose the sentence.
DOJ-OGR-00021640.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely a sentencing hearing) concerning Ghislaine Maxwell. The presiding judge rejects claims regarding Maxwell's poor treatment at the MDC, citing her extensive access to resources, and highlights a pattern of dishonesty regarding her finances and civil deposition testimony (perjury). While noting that Maxwell and her attorney, Ms. Sternheim, acknowledged the victims' suffering, the judge emphasizes that Maxwell failed to express remorse or accept responsibility for her actions.
DOJ-OGR-00021638.jpg
This document is a page from a sentencing transcript for Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge is discussing sentencing factors, noting her age (over 60), lack of prior convictions, and the government's admission that she is not a continuing danger, while balancing this against her 'decade-long pattern of predatory activity.' The text also references mitigation arguments regarding her difficult family history (overbearing father, death of brother) and her charitable works and tutoring of inmates.
DOJ-OGR-00021632.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sentencing hearing on June 29, 2023. The judge confirms with defense counsel, Ms. Sternheim and Ms. Moe, that there are no objections to the supervised release conditions recommended by the Probation Department. The judge also clarifies that although Count Six involves mandatory restitution, the government's position is that none should be ordered because all victims have already been compensated.
DOJ-OGR-00021629.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sentencing hearing for Ghislaine Maxwell, dated June 29, 2023. Maxwell's attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues that Maxwell is not a danger and should not receive a life sentence. The judge then addresses Maxwell directly, informing her of her right to make a statement and arranging for her to approach the podium.
DOJ-OGR-00021626.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) involving the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim argues that the government's requested sentence is excessive and notes that the Probation Department recommended a downward variance to 20 years. Sternheim compares Maxwell to Jeffrey Epstein, arguing that Epstein was 'far more culpable' yet would have faced the same sentencing guidelines.
DOJ-OGR-00021625.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sentencing hearing on June 29, 2023. Attorney Sternheim is speaking on behalf of her client, Ms. Maxwell, addressing the court and Judge Nathan. Ms. Sternheim acknowledges the courage of the victims and argues against the government's request for a sentence of 'multiple decades in prison' for Ms. Maxwell, who is nearly 61 years old.
DOJ-OGR-00021624.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) featuring a victim impact statement by Ms. Stein against Ghislaine Maxwell. Stein describes the trauma she endured and calls for Maxwell's imprisonment so victims can be free. Following her statement, attorney Ms. Sternheim requests permission from the judge to address the victims directly.
DOJ-OGR-00021600.jpg
This document is a court transcript from June 29, 2023, detailing a procedural discussion about the order of statements. Counsel Ms. Moe asks the Court's preference for when victims should speak, and the Court outlines the sequence as government, victims, defense counsel, and then Ms. Maxwell. After confirming no objections from counsel, the Court calls for a luncheon recess until 1:00.
DOJ-OGR-00021550.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 22-1426) concerning the sentencing of Ghislaine Maxwell. The proceedings cover the confirmation of victim notification postings on the U.S. Attorney's website. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, both confirm on the record that they have reviewed the presentence report and discussed it. Ms. Sternheim notes that co-counsel Mr. Everdell will handle objections.
DOJ-OGR-00019141.jpg
This is a transcript of a court proceeding from August 10, 2022, where the judge and attorneys discuss scheduling for the remainder of a trial. The main topic is whether to hold a charge conference on Thursday night, which depends on if the defense will rest its case before Friday. A defense attorney also brings up an unresolved issue regarding a subpoena served to an individual named Mr. Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00019124.jpg
This document is the final page (Index of Examination) of a court transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the testimony of witnesses Janine Gill Velez, Shawn, Nicole Hesse, and David Rodgers, along with the attorneys conducting the examinations (Rohrbach, Sternheim, Comey, Pagliuca, Moe, Everdell). It also logs the receipt of Government Exhibits 823, 823-R, 105, 1, 2, 3, 662, and 662-R.
Scheduling concerns
Asking if there are concerns regarding the Friday morning session plan.
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.
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.
Witness Testimony Objection
Discussing objections to the relevance of testimony from upcoming witnesses called out of order.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Preclusion from cross-examination
Ms. Sternheim argues that the government's decision not to use a photograph while a witness was on the stand prevented her from cross-examining the witness about nudity, a topic she considered relevant.
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.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests to raise an issue at sidebar with the Judge, and the Judge agrees.
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.
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.
Relevance objection
Ms. Sternheim objects to evidence based on relevance and foundation as a business record.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity