Ms. Sternheim
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
JANE
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Everdell
|
Co counsel defense |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
her
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Alessi
|
Witness counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Co counsel |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Co defense counsel |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Opposing counsel |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Catherine Conrad
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Defendant (Implied Maxwell)
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
four accusers
|
Adversarial |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court hearing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) where a witness, Mr. Parkinson, is excused, followed by ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion in court to determine the schedule and deadlines for submitting legal papers. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | The conclusion of a court hearing where the judge addressed rising COVID incidents at a facility ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Attorneys are arguing before a judge about the admissibility of a witness's prior statements and ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court discussion regarding the admissibility of a witness's testimony. Ms. Sternheim argues tha... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the judge and attorneys after the jury has left for the day. Topics included... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of a witness named Kate regarding conversations she had with Maxwell about Eps... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding the procedures for upcoming jury deliberations. | courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A portion of a trial where attorney Mr. Rohrbach directs the jury's attention to Government Exhib... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Direct examination of witness Matt regarding his past relationship with Jane and her home life, i... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion to determine the procedure for alternating peremptory strikes during jury selection. | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Trial | An opening statement by Ms. Sternheim in a court trial where she argues that the memories of four... | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Direct testimony of witness Matt in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where a judge denies a request for a mistrial regarding the admission of evidence... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court recess | The court takes a luncheon recess, planned to last 20 minutes. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | The court announces a recess for a one-hour lunch break during a trial. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness named Kate regarding her past acting roles. A procedural issue ari... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Cross-examination of witness Kate regarding her employment status and knowledge of U visa require... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the use of extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness's testim... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A procedural discussion during a trial regarding the timing of an objection to a witness's testim... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court recess | The court announced a 45-minute lunch break. Proceedings were scheduled to resume with opening st... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion about the scheduling of closing arguments, the jury charge, and the handling of exhi... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court between the judge and attorneys for the government and defense regarding pr... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | A witness named Matt is under direct examination, testifying about his conversations with Jane re... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument between Ms. Sternheim and the Court during the redirect examination of a witness... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
DOJ-OGR-00016651.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, detailing a sidebar conference regarding the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim objects to the prosecution's questioning as 'character assassination,' while prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz argues the questioning establishes the witness's 'financial incentive' to testify for the defense as a career expert witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016650.jpg
This document is page 167 of a court transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. During the cross-examination of an expert witness identified as 'Loftus' (likely Dr. Elizabeth Loftus), the questioning attorney asks if she testified for Harvey Weinstein in his criminal trial. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim objects immediately, and the Court pauses the proceedings to hear arguments, presumably at a sidebar.
DOJ-OGR-00016649.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Loftus. The questioning attorney accuses Loftus of using testimony from past high-profile cases to market their services and earn more money, an accusation Loftus explicitly denies. Loftus does admit to providing lists of prior cases to defense attorneys, but only when asked.
DOJ-OGR-00016642.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of Professor Loftus during the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Ms. Pomerantz questions Loftus, establishing her background as a researcher and consultant who has worked with defense attorneys in criminal cases hundreds of times. The page marks the transition from direct examination by Ms. Sternheim to cross-examination by Ms. Pomerantz.
DOJ-OGR-00016638.jpg
This page contains a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim is examining a witness, Professor/Judge Loftus, establishing that they did not go into great detail about the witness's CV to save time. Sternheim successfully moves to admit the CV (Exhibit EF-1) into evidence over an objection by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz. Sternheim then questions Loftus to confirm she is being compensated for her time but has no stake in the trial's outcome.
DOJ-OGR-00016636.jpg
This document is page 153 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of Professor Loftus by Ms. Sternheim following a lunch break. The testimony focuses on the psychological concept that memory confidence is malleable and can be artificially inflated by confirming information, referencing research by Professor Wells from Iowa State.
DOJ-OGR-00016635.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Sternheim, over the admissibility of a question for a witness. The judge sustains an objection on '401 ground', limiting the line of questioning. The transcript concludes with the court preparing to bring in the jury and call witnesses Mr. Hamilton and Ms. Williams to testify.
DOJ-OGR-00016634.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Sternheim and Rohrbach argue before the Judge regarding the admissibility of a statement allegedly made by 'Kate' claiming the case against Maxwell was strengthening because accusers were 'strengthening their stories.' The prosecution argues against its admission as an inconsistent statement because Kate was not challenged on it during cross-examination, while the defense appears to argue for its admission under a bias framework.
DOJ-OGR-00016633.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of a witness's testimony. Attorneys Sternheim and Rohrbach debate with the judge whether a statement allegedly made by someone named Kate, "It fell into my lap," can be used as evidence to show bias concerning Mr. Hamilton. The judge rules that the statement is permissible for the jury to consider for bias, but prohibits the witness, Mr. Hamilton, from speculating on its meaning.
DOJ-OGR-00016632.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Rohrbach before a judge. The core issue is whether extrinsic evidence can be used to impeach the testimony of a witness named Kate by showing bias. The discussion references the legal precedent set in *United States v. Harvey* and focuses on whether a specific statement, "it fell into my lap," is sufficient to create an inference of bias for the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016630.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Sternheim before a judge. The discussion centers on a '401 objection' regarding the admissibility of evidence to impeach a witness named Kate. Mr. Rohrbach argues the evidence is extrinsic and on a collateral matter, while Ms. Sternheim contends it is permissible to show the witness's motive and bias.
DOJ-OGR-00016629.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion about admitting testimony from a witness. An attorney, Ms. Sternheim, argues that testimony about a conversation with a woman named 'Kate' regarding Jeffrey Epstein is necessary to show Kate's financial motive and bias, suggesting she is interested in a 'windfall'. The government, represented by Mr. Rohrbach, objects to this line of testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00016623.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural discussion between the Judge ('The Court') and defense attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Everdell regarding the scheduling of the next witness. Mr. Everdell indicates the next witness will be either Richard Barnett or Michael Aznaran from Customs and Border Protection, after which the court takes a 45-minute recess.
DOJ-OGR-00016622.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several lawyers (Rohrbach, Sternheim, Pomerantz) regarding procedural matters. The discussion focuses on narrowing the scope of an affidavit to a few paragraphs and determining the schedule for the remainder of the day's proceedings. Logistical issues are raised, including arranging a Webex for a 'Mr. Hamilton' and estimating the time required for a 'Professor Loftus'.
DOJ-OGR-00016620.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. With the jury not present, the judge excuses a witness for a break and then discusses procedural matters with the attorneys (Pomerantz, Sternheim, Rohrbach, Everdell). The primary focus is on resolving 'prior inconsistent statements,' with the judge urging the lawyers to confer and narrow the points of disagreement.
DOJ-OGR-00016615.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct testimony of expert witness Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, questioned by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, regarding the fallibility and constructive nature of human memory. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz successfully objects to a leading question posed by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00016614.jpg
This document is page 131 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the direct examination of a witness named Loftus (likely memory expert Dr. Elizabeth Loftus) by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim. The testimony focuses on the concepts of the 'forgetting curve' and 'post-event information,' with several objections raised by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz regarding leading questions and witness commentary.
DOJ-OGR-00016604.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim requests permission for expert witness Professor Loftus to use courtroom monitors as a whiteboard to demonstrate the stages of memory to the jury. After the prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) raises no objection and the Judge approves, Professor Loftus begins testifying about the 'acquisition stage' of memory.
DOJ-OGR-00016603.jpg
This document is a page from the trial transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Ms. Sternheim examines Professor Elizabeth Loftus, successfully proffering her as an expert witness in memory science despite objections from prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz. Loftus begins her testimony by explaining to the jury that human memory does not function like a recording device but is a complex reconstruction process.
DOJ-OGR-00016589.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of Dr. Loftus by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim. The dialogue focuses on introducing Dr. Loftus's CV (Exhibit EL-1) and listing her honorary degrees from various international universities.
DOJ-OGR-00016586.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a segment of a legal proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It records the beginning of the direct examination of Elizabeth Loftus, a professor and scientist, who was called as a witness by the defense. The transcript includes exchanges between Ms. Sternheim (defense counsel), Mr. Everdell, and the presiding Judge, as Professor Loftus starts to explain her role to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016513.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between attorneys Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Everdell, and the judge. The conversation focuses on whether to mark an exhibit for identification and the provision of a large volume of paper documents to an upcoming witness. The discussion concludes with the judge deciding to bring in the jury and Mr. Everdell confirming he will call the first witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016512.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between defense attorney Ms. Sternheim and the Court regarding the use of digital equipment to simulate a whiteboard for a 'demonstrative' presentation to the jury, necessitated by COVID-19 restrictions. Sternheim asks if a photo should be taken for the record, and the Court clarifies that demonstratives (like whiteboards) are generally not entered into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016511.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022. The attorneys (Mr. Everdell, Ms. Comey, Ms. Sternheim) and the judge discuss procedural issues, including who will make photocopies and a request for a recess. Ms. Sternheim also informs the court about the need for a screen for an upcoming witness, potentially Dr. Loftus.
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.
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'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.
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
Argument regarding sentencing guidelines, probation recommendations, and culpability comparison between Maxwell and Epstein.
Sentencing Arguments
Defense argues for a lower sentence, citing the probation department's recommendation and comparing Maxwell's culpability to Epstein's.
Scheduling break
Let's get started. My plan was to break at 3:30.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding CV detail and compensation.
Admissibility of Documents 823 and 824
Discussion regarding a personal action notice for Sky Roberts and insurance documents listing his dependents.
Proffer of Expert Witness
Sternheim requests that Loftus be recognized as an expert in memory science; Judge agrees subject to prior rulings.
Redirect examination
Asking if testimony would differ if called by the government.
Format Inquiry
Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory to the Court.
Cross-examination
Questions regarding memory, wearing uniforms, and conversations with Ghislaine.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding fund application vetting for fraud.
Procedural discussion regarding demonstrative evidence
Discussion regarding the use of digital equipment to simulate a whiteboard due to COVID restrictions and whether a photograph of the work should be preserved for the record.
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.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests a sidebar to discuss matters related to a witness with anonymity status.
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.
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.
Admissibility of Evidence
Discussion regarding Exhibits 823 (employment notice) and 824 (insurance document) concerning Sky Roberts.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity