Ms. Sternheim
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Professor Elizabeth Loftus
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Besselsen
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Conrad
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CHRISTIAN EVERDELL
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Laura Menninger
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Pagliuca
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed witness
|
Cross examiner potential |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
JANINE GILL VELEZ
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
DANIEL ALAN BESSELSEN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Conrad
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ghislaine
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Professor Loftus
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CHRISTIAN EVERDELL
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Laura Menninger
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Pagliuca
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Judge Nathan
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the Judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of Elizabeth Loftus in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxw... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding / witness testimony | Direct examination of Elizabeth Loftus, a professor and scientist, who was called as a witness by... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Redirect examination of witness A. Farmer | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Meeting | The attorneys agree to confer to narrow the issues regarding prior inconsistent statements. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding/filing regarding evidentiary admissibility. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Sidebar conference during trial | Courtroom (Sidebar) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding the admissibility of Government Exhibit 761. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing date of the court document containing the opening statement. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing discussing motions to preclude testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding evidentiary objections (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding (Opening Statement) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Ms. Ste... | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Courtroom procedural discussion regarding the use of digital equipment to replace a physical whit... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court with the jury not present, where a witness is excused and procedural matter... | N/A | View |
| 2022-07-22 | N/A | Court hearing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) | Southern District Court (li... | View |
| 2022-07-22 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where victim impact statements are being presented. Ms. Stein gives her statem... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-07-22 | Court hearing | A sentencing hearing where the defense counsel presents arguments for a more lenient sentence, ch... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-07-22 | Sentencing hearing | A court hearing where counsel and the judge discuss the defendant's (Ms. Maxwell) ability to pay ... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-07-22 | N/A | Court hearing regarding sentencing and judgment (likely Ghislaine Maxwell case based on case numb... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-07-22 | N/A | Sentencing hearing for Ghislaine Maxwell | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-07-22 | Court hearing | A procedural discussion during a court hearing regarding the sequence of statements to be made by... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-07-22 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where Ms. Maxwell's designation to a prison facility was discussed and counts ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-06-28 | N/A | Sentencing Hearing | Unknown | View |
| 2022-03-24 | Voir dire / court proceeding | A judge questions a potential juror to assess their impartiality for an upcoming trial. | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-03-16 | Trial | Start of a trial of approximately six-week duration in the case 'United States v. Marquez-Alejand... | United States District Cour... | View |
| 2022-03-11 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017205.jpg
This document is page 184 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It captures the final moments of prosecutor Ms. Comey's closing argument, where she asks the jury to find the defendant guilty of participating in the sexual abuse of underage girls. Following this, the Court (Judge Nathan) begins reading the jury instructions, starting with Instruction No. 1 regarding the Role of the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00017100.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. The page covers a judge denying a request for a mistrial regarding the admissibility of phone number evidence linked to an individual named 'Carolyn'. The court then breaks for a lunch recess, after which the defense notes technical difficulties with a courtroom screen.
DOJ-OGR-00017096.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a legal argument made outside the presence of the jury. Attorney Ms. Sternheim objects to a statement made by opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, during closing arguments. The core of the dispute is whether a massage table's origin in California is sufficient to prove an effect on interstate commerce, a key element of the charges, with Ms. Sternheim arguing that this interpretation is incorrect.
DOJ-OGR-00017024.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell case). The Judge and attorneys (Moe, Menninger, Sternheim) discuss balancing public access with necessary redactions and establish time limits for upcoming arguments, with the government requesting up to 2.5 hours. Attorney Sternheim shares a brief anecdote about Judge Motley to contextualize strict time limits.
DOJ-OGR-00017018.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between the Judge, defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, and prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding procedural matters before the jury returns on a Monday at 8:30 AM. They discuss creating an agreed-upon list of admitted exhibits and redacting transcripts for potential jury review to avoid readbacks.
DOJ-OGR-00017017.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Everdell, and Ms. Sternheim. The conversation centers on logistical planning for the end of a trial, including the timing of closing arguments, the significant length of the jury charge (about 80 pages), and the procedures for handling jury exhibits, noting changes from previous COVID protocols.
DOJ-OGR-00017015.jpg
This document is a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Sternheim and Ms. Comey. The parties agree to conduct closing arguments on the upcoming Monday and discuss the appropriate length, with the judge suggesting two hours. Ms. Comey notes the preparation is still cumbersome due to exhibits that were intentionally reserved for the closing arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00017014.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed Aug 10, 2022) from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The discussion centers on finalizing the 'verdict sheet,' specifically correcting a typographical error where a 'T' appeared instead of a checkmark. The Judge outlines a schedule for receiving a letter from the government regarding open issues and sending out final redline and clean versions of the documents.
DOJ-OGR-00016995.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Sternheim, Pagliuca, Rohrbach). The main topic is the formulation of jury instructions and closing arguments, with Mr. Rohrbach arguing for the inclusion of a 'conscious avoidance theory' on behalf of the government. The judge acknowledges the argument as a 'fair point' and considers giving the instruction, while also mentioning a theory related to flight records.
DOJ-OGR-00016990.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge and attorneys. The judge notes the defense's strategy of questioning witnesses about victims' ages to challenge whether the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, had knowledge of their ages. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, begins to raise a related evidentiary issue concerning testimony about multiple females at Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00016985.jpg
This document is page 59 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text captures a legal argument regarding jury instructions, specifically concerning 'overt acts' and the testimony of a witness named 'Kate.' The defense (Everdell and Sternheim) and prosecution (Rohrbach) are present, and the Judge calls for a 10-minute recess following a request by Ms. Sternheim to consult with Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00016924.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on 08/10/22. It records the end of a day's proceedings where the defense (Ms. Sternheim) renews a Rule 29 motion for acquittal. The Judge coordinates scheduling for a charging conference with staff member Ms. Williams and adjourns the court until December 18, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00016912.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Sternheim, Ms. Comey, and Mr. Everdell) about the day's trial schedule. The judge discusses the need to potentially keep the jury until 5:30 or 6:00 PM and shows consideration for jurors' potential childcare responsibilities. After the scheduling is discussed, the jury is brought in, and the judge allows Mr. Everdell to proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00016911.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys (Ms. Sternheim, Ms. Comey) and the Court regarding scheduling for an ongoing legal proceeding. The parties discuss the timing for bringing in the jury, potential extended hours on Monday to complete proceedings, and the estimated duration of closing arguments, including a summation argument for Ms. Moe and a rebuttal. The conversation focuses on logistical aspects of the trial's conclusion.
DOJ-OGR-00016910.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a critical moment where the defendant, Ghislaine Maxwell ('Ms. Maxwell'), formally confirms to the Court that she has decided not to testify in her trial, following consultation with her attorney, Ms. Sternheim. The proceedings include a brief recess, after which attorneys Ms. Comey and Mr. Everdell confirm their readiness to proceed.
DOJ-OGR-00016737.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript details a discussion where defense attorney Ms. Sternheim confirms the defense will not call a witness named Mr. Hamilton, citing concerns over public access limitations during remote testimony. Additionally, prosecutor Ms. Comey discusses the scheduling of custodian witnesses for a brief rebuttal presentation.
DOJ-OGR-00016735.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between a judge and several lawyers regarding procedural issues. The topics include a defense subpoena, ongoing negotiations with the government over redactions for exhibits, and a decision by the defense not to pursue testimony from a Mr. Hamilton in England due to technical complications.
DOJ-OGR-00016727.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Attorney Ms. Menninger expresses concern that the government's rebuttal might become a second closing argument and requests the court enforce a rule to limit its scope. In response, attorney Ms. Comey assures the judge that the rebuttal will be significantly shorter than the closing, adhering to the standard practice in the district, a position the court affirms.
DOJ-OGR-00016726.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue captures a procedural discussion between the Judge, Defense Attorney Ms. Sternheim, and Prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding the timing of the jury charge draft and estimates for closing arguments (summations). Ms. Sternheim makes a remark about the government getting 'two cracks' at closing arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00016723.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features a procedural discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Defense attorneys (Mr. Pagliuca, Ms. Sternheim), and the Prosecution (Ms. Comey). The primary topic is whether the government intends to call a rebuttal witness; Ms. Comey indicates they are leaning against it but will decide by the next morning.
DOJ-OGR-00016722.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge and defense counsel (Menninger, Everdell, Sternheim) regarding the trial schedule, specifically aiming to finish witness testimony by the following morning to allow for closing arguments and jury instructions on Monday. The court also mentions a pending motion to preclude and a previous ruling on anonymity.
DOJ-OGR-00016673.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) detailing the end of Professor Loftus's testimony. Under redirect by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, Loftus confirms her testimony would remain unchanged regardless of which side called her. Following her excusal, defense attorney Mr. Everdell calls the next witness, Michael Aznaran.
DOJ-OGR-00016670.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the redirect examination of Professor Loftus by counsel Ms. Sternheim. The questioning establishes Professor Loftus's extensive 50-year career in experimental psychology and confirms she was previously questioned about various studies, including some involving sexual abuse. Counsel Ms. Pomerantz makes an objection which is sustained by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00016656.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus. The questioning focuses on a psychological study Loftus conducted, which successfully implanted false memories in participants by suggesting they had met the Warner Brothers character Bugs Bunny at Disneyland. The transcript concludes with an attorney, Ms. Sternheim, objecting to the line of questioning.
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