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-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.
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 Testimony Objection
Discussing objections to the relevance of testimony from upcoming witnesses called out of order.
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.
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.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests to raise an issue at sidebar with the Judge, and the Judge agrees.
Pending redaction issues
Ms. Moe informed the court that she had spoken with Ms. Sternheim that morning about the redaction issues being discussed.
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.
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.
Request for a sidebar
Ms. Sternheim requests a sidebar to discuss matters related to a witness with anonymity status.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Relevance objection
Ms. Sternheim objects to evidence based on relevance and foundation as a business record.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity