Trove
Sign In Sign Up

Ms. Sternheim

Person
Mentions
877
Relationships
86
Events
390
Documents
429
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

Event Timeline

Interactive Timeline: Hover over events to see details. Events are arranged chronologically and alternate between top and bottom for better visibility.
86 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person Professor Loftus
Legal representative
7
3
View
person Elizabeth Loftus
Legal representative
6
2
View
person Mulligan
Professional
6
2
View
organization GOVERNMENT
Professional
6
2
View
person Unnamed witness
Legal representative
6
2
View
person Elizabeth Loftus
Professional
6
1
View
person Kate
Legal representative
6
2
View
person Loftus
Professional
6
2
View
person Ms. Moe
Opposing counsel
6
2
View
person MS. MENNINGER
Co counsel implied
6
2
View
person Jury
Legal representative
5
1
View
person MR. ROHRBACH
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Ghislaine
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Ms. Lundberg
Business associate
5
1
View
person MS. MENNINGER
Business associate
5
1
View
organization Defense
Representation
5
1
View
person DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN
Legal representative
5
1
View
person MS. MENNINGER
Co counsel defense
5
1
View
person THE WITNESS (Loftus)
Professional
5
1
View
person Ms. Maxwell
Defense counsel implied
5
1
View
person Dr. Loftus
Legal representative
5
1
View
person MS. POMERANTZ
Adversarial professional
5
1
View
organization The government
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Mr. Hamilton
Legal representative
5
1
View
person Judge
Legal representative
5
1
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
2021-12-01 Court adjournment The court session was adjourned to reconvene on December 1, 2021, at 8:45 a.m. Courtroom View
2021-04-01 N/A Court Hearing Court (Southern District) View
2012-02-15 Court testimony Catherine M. Conrad is called as a witness, granted use immunity after asserting her Fifth Amendm... Courtroom View
2012-02-15 N/A Court hearing regarding Juror No. 1 (Catherine Conrad). Discussion of her Fifth Amendment rights,... Southern District Courtroom View
2012-02-15 Court session/inquiry Afternoon session of a court inquiry, addressing matters that developed over the luncheon recess,... Court View
2012-02-15 Meeting Ms. Conrad met with Ms. Sternheim a total of six times. N/A View
2012-02-15 Court hearing A court hearing to discuss an application to close the courtroom for the testimony of Ms. Conrad,... courtroom View
2008-10-22 N/A Court proceedings regarding jury questions and scheduling. Courtroom View
2008-10-22 N/A Conclusion of Defense Opening Statement Courtroom View
2008-10-22 N/A Procedural discussion during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell regarding witness scheduling and cros... Courtroom View
0023-12-01 N/A Jury Deliberations Jury Room View
0022-08-10 N/A Court filing date of the transcript. Courtroom (Southern Distric... View
0022-08-10 N/A Court Filing Southern District (implied NY) View
0022-08-10 N/A Sidebar conference during trial where the Government officially rests its case. Courtroom (Sidebar) View
0022-08-10 N/A Court Hearing regarding Opening Statements Courtroom View

DOJ-OGR-00011600.jpg

This document is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, capturing a defense attorney's argument during a sentencing hearing. The attorney, Ms. Sternheim, asks the Court for a sentence below the recommended guidelines, arguing the government's request is disproportionate and that the more culpable Jeffrey Epstein would have faced the same sentencing guidelines as her client, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011598.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on July 22, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. A victim, Ms. Stein, delivers a powerful impact statement describing how Maxwell's actions affected her for 25 years and calls for Maxwell to be imprisoned. Following the statement, another individual, Ms. Sternheim, addresses the court to speak to the victims.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011574.jpg

This is a court transcript from July 22, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion about the order of statements. Counsel Ms. Moe asks the judge if victims should speak before or after the main parties. The judge clarifies the intended sequence is government, victims, defense counsel, and then Ms. Maxwell, to which all parties present agree before the court takes a luncheon recess.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00011523.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated July 22, 2022, involving Ms. Sternheim (defense) and Ms. Moe (government). The proceedings cover administrative confirmations of filings on ECF and a substantive discussion regarding the government's compliance with the 'Justice For All Act.' Specifically, Ms. Moe confirms that the government has notified six victims, proven at trial to be impacted, about the upcoming sentencing and their right to be heard.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
55
As Recipient
5
Total
60

Witness Testimony Objection

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Discussing objections to the relevance of testimony from upcoming witnesses called out of order.

Dialogue
N/A
Communication Source

Scheduling concerns

From: THE COURT
To: Ms. Sternheim

Asking if there are concerns regarding the Friday morning session plan.

Court proceeding
N/A
Communication Source

Format inquiry

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Inquiring if a specific format was satisfactory.

Courtroom dialogue
N/A
Communication Source

Confidentiality for Ms. Conrad's testimony

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

A letter submitted by Ms. Sternheim regarding Ms. Conrad's confidentiality, medical conditions, disciplinary proceedings, and intention to assert her Fifth Amendment right.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Checking on Mr. Hamilton's availability

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: Mr. Hamilton

The Court instructs Ms. Sternheim to 'make that call' to check on Mr. Hamilton's availability, and she confirms she is doing so.

Phone call
N/A
Communication Source

Witness's positive COVID test

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

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.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Sentencing Arguments

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Argument regarding sentencing guidelines, probation recommendations, and culpability comparison between Maxwell and Epstein.

Court proceeding
2023-06-29
Communication Source

Request to speak

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Request to stand at the podium and address the victims directly.

Meeting
2023-06-29
Communication Source

Sentencing and Fines

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Discussion regarding the imposition of a fine, the status of a bequest in a will, and the formal imposition of the sentence.

Meeting
2023-06-29
Communication Source

Sentencing of Ms. Maxwell

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["THE COURT", "Judge N...

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.

Courtroom dialogue
2023-06-29
Communication Source

Sentencing Arguments

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Defense argues for a lower sentence, citing the probation department's recommendation and comparing Maxwell's culpability to Epstein's.

Meeting
2022-08-22
Communication Source

Opening Statement (Defense)

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: Members of the jury

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.

Courtroom statement
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Scheduling

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Requesting to wait until tomorrow.

Court dialogue
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Pending redaction issues

From: Ms. Moe
To: Ms. Sternheim

Ms. Moe informed the court that she had spoken with Ms. Sternheim that morning about the redaction issues being discussed.

Spoken conversation
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Relationship between Ghislaine and Epstein, and Epstein's...

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: Court/Jury (implied)

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
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Objection to closing argument statement

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["The Court"]

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.

Court dialogue
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Cross-examination of Gill Velez

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["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.

Court testimony
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Admissibility of Documents 823 and 824

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Discussion regarding a personal action notice for Sky Roberts and insurance documents listing his dependents.

Court proceeding
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Request for a sidebar

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["Judge"]

Ms. Sternheim requests to raise an issue at sidebar with the Judge, and the Judge agrees.

Courtroom dialogue
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Request for a sidebar

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["The Court"]

Ms. Sternheim requests a sidebar to discuss matters related to a witness with anonymity status.

Court proceeding dialogue
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Cross-examination regarding exhibit 'Defendant's K9'

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["Kate", "THE COURT"]

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'.

Court testimony
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Opening Statement

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Ms. Sternheim describes the circumstances of Annie's meetings with Epstein in New York and Ghislaine in Santa Fe when Annie was 16.

Court testimony
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Admissibility of lawyers as witnesses

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["The Court"]

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.

Court dialogue
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Preclusion from cross-examination

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: ["The Court"]

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 dialogue
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Jury Confusion

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: THE COURT

Argument that the jury mentioning New Mexico for a New York count indicates confusion not solved by simple referral.

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search