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 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Besselsen regarding a document from 1996. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion was held to determine if a witness who tested positive for COVID could testify remot... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the court and counsel regarding the logistics for closing arguments, specifi... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding the admissibility of witness 'Matt's' testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Loftus in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Trial Resumed | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding jury instructions for a case involving an alleged victim named Ka... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place regarding the admissibility of Government Exhibit 824, specifically w... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A legal argument during a trial regarding the use of the word 'rape' in witness testimony. Attorn... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | During a trial, the judge and counsel discuss jury instructions and a note received from the deli... | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion during a court hearing regarding the scope of cross-examination of a witness named C... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion during a court hearing about testimony related to exhibit 3505-005 and a request for... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court hearing for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, during which legal arguments were made regarding an o... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument took place concerning an objection to the admission of Government Exhibit 761, s... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument during a court proceeding about the relevance of cross-examination questions dir... | courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness named Jane during a court case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE). | open court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | An opening statement was made by Ms. Sternheim on behalf of her client, Ghislaine Maxwell, in cas... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument occurred between an attorney (Ms. Sternheim) and the judge (The Court) over an e... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion in court regarding a request for a witness, who has contracted COVID and is quaranti... | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding jury questions on Count Four (transportation count) and jurisdiction ... | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness named Kate regarding her involvement in movies listed on a documen... | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court proceeding where legal arguments are being made regarding evidence, witness testimony, an... | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding trial logistics, including seating arrangements for lawyers to ma... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion in court to clarify the schedule and witnesses for an upcoming day of the trial. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Discussion of Exhibits 823 and 824 | Courtroom | 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.
Format inquiry
Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory.
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.
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.
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 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 and Fines
Discussion regarding the imposition of a fine, the status of a bequest in a will, and the formal imposition of the sentence.
Request to speak
Request to stand at the podium and address the victims directly.
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.
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.
Scope of witness testimony
MS. STERNHEIM and THE COURT discuss the allowable scope of a witness's testimony. The Court rules to limit the testimony to issues from cross-examination that pertain to attacking the credibility of an unnamed woman.
Defense argument regarding burden of proof and presumptio...
Ms. Sternheim argues to the jury that the government has the burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, mentions the presumption of innocence, and contrasts the presence of Ghislaine Maxwell with the absence of Jeffrey Epstein.
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.
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.
Relevance objection
Ms. Sternheim objects to evidence based on relevance and foundation as a business record.
Defense's opening statement regarding Jeffrey Epstein.
Ms. Sternheim argues that there is a lack of evidence and no eyewitnesses to support the indictment's charges. She characterizes Epstein as a mysterious, manipulative man who attracted powerful people and suggests his accusers have financially benefited from their claims.
Description of Epstein's private jets and relationship wi...
Ms. Sternheim describes Epstein's private jets as a form of high-style commuting for a wide array of people, including friends, celebrities, and politicians. She also outlines the evolution of Ghislaine's relationship with Epstein, from a companion to solely an employee, and states the case will center on four women.
Jury Scheduling
Discussion regarding jury deliberation schedule over holidays and COVID-19 protocols.
Admissibility of insurance form content
Discussion regarding hearsay, the Lieberman case, and verification of employee information.
Clarification on questioning a witness
Ms. Sternheim corrected Ms. Pomerantz, stating her intended question was not about the ex-husband but about whether the witness had asked a friend to plant drugs on the father of her child.
Courtroom Temperature
Ms. Sternheim asks the Judge if the temperature can be raised because it is very cold. The Court responds that they are sweating but will get it raised.
Witness's memory and knowledge of media coverage
Ms. Sternheim questions Mr. Mulligan about his ability to recall events from over 25 years ago, his conversations with Ms. Farmer, and his awareness of media and documentaries related to the case and Ms. Farmer.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity