Relationship Details

MS. POMERANTZ Opposing counsel Ms. Sternheim

Connected Entities

Entity A
MS. POMERANTZ
Type: person
Mentions: 906
Entity B
Ms. Sternheim
Type: person
Mentions: 877

Evidence

Pomerantz responds to Sternheim's request with 'No objection'.

Context of a criminal trial with prosecution and defense.

Both addressed as 'Counsel' by the court and given opportunity to question.

Present at sidebar representing different interests

Pomerantz objects to Sternheim's questioning techniques (Leading).

Pomerantz objects to Sternheim's leading question.

Sternheim represents the defense (referring to Defendant's K-8) and shows documents to 'the government' (Pomerantz).

Pomerantz objects to Sternheim's proffer.

Pomerantz objects to Sternheim's motion to admit evidence.

Context of court transcript listing them as separate parties responding to the judge.

Judge asks Pomerantz for objections to Sternheim's request.

Source Documents (11)

DOJ-OGR-00016638.jpg

Court Transcript • 487 KB
View

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-00013980.jpg

Court Transcript (Direct Examination) • 542 KB
View

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the direct examination of Professor Loftus by defense attorney Ms. Sternheim, specifically discussing the 'acquisition stage' of memory. The transcript details a procedural moment where the defense requests permission to use courtroom monitors as a whiteboard for demonstrative purposes, to which the prosecution (Ms. Pomerantz) has no objection.

DOJ-OGR-00016603.jpg

Court Transcript (Trial Testimony) • 546 KB
View

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-00016614.jpg

Court Transcript (US District Court) • 506 KB
View

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-00018366.jpg

Court Transcript (Direct Examination) • 467 KB
View

This document is a page from the court transcript of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. It details the beginning of the direct examination of a witness using the pseudonym 'Kate' to protect her privacy. The prosecutor, Ms. Pomerantz, requests the jury look at Government Exhibit 16, which is noted as being under seal.

DOJ-OGR-00009106.jpg

Court Transcript (Voir Dire/Jury Selection) • 484 KB
View

This document is a single page (page 9 of 10) from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It records the voir dire examination of a prospective juror who confirms they do not listen to podcasts or follow criminal cases in the news. The juror affirms their ability to be fair and impartial to both sides, and both Ms. Pomerantz and Ms. Sternheim decline to ask further questions.

DOJ-OGR-00010260.jpg

Court Transcript • 555 KB
View

This document is page 45 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on March 11, 2022. It details an inquiry by the Court into a witness or potential juror's interactions with reporters regarding their personal history of sexual abuse. Following the questioning, a sidebar conference occurs where defense attorney Ms. Sternheim requests the Judge ask the individual about their knowledge of the case summary, noting the individual admitted to knowing the case was about sexual abuse.

DOJ-OGR-00016604.jpg

Court Transcript • 542 KB
View

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-00014879.jpg

Court Transcript • 582 KB
View

This document is page 3 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. The Judge discusses the necessity of sealing portions of the proceedings related to Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (sexual behavior evidence) and outlines the schedule for addressing 'Daubert' issues first. The Judge also notes a high response rate for jury summons, with 565 prospective jurors having filled out questionnaires in two days.

DOJ-OGR-00016615.jpg

Court Transcript • 586 KB
View

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-00018462.jpg

Court Transcript • 487 KB
View

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a legal exchange between Ms. Sternheim (Defense) and Ms. Pomerantz (Prosecution) regarding an exhibit labeled 'Defendant's K-8' or '3513-019'. Ms. Pomerantz begins a legal argument citing the 'recorded recollection rule' as an exception to hearsay.

Mutual Connections

Entities connected to both MS. POMERANTZ and Ms. Sternheim

Judge (person)
DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN (person)
The government (organization)
GOVERNMENT (organization)
Mulligan (person)
Ms. Comey (person)
MR. PAGLIUCA (person)
MR. ROHRBACH (person)
The Court (organization)
Professor Loftus (person)

MS. POMERANTZ's Other Relationships

Legal representative Dr. Rocchio
Strength: 13/10 View
Opposing counsel MR. PAGLIUCA
Strength: 11/10 View
Professional Mr. Flatley
Strength: 10/10 View
Professional MR. PAGLIUCA
Strength: 10/10 View
Professional Ms. Sternheim
Strength: 10/10 View

Ms. Sternheim's Other Relationships

Legal representative The Court
Strength: 19/10 View
Co counsel Mr. Everdell
Strength: 13/10 View
Client Ms. Maxwell
Strength: 13/10 View
Opposing counsel Ms. Comey
Strength: 12/10 View
Professional Ms. Maxwell
Strength: 10/10 View

Relationship Metadata

Type
Opposing counsel
Relationship Strength
12/10
Strong relationship with substantial evidence
Source Documents
11
Extracted
2025-11-20 19:32
Last Updated
2025-12-26 12:27

Entity Network Stats

MS. POMERANTZ 87 relationships
Ms. Sternheim 86 relationships
Mutual connections 10

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein relationship