DOJ-OGR-00018803.jpg
524 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
524 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge. They are discussing the consistency of testimony from a witness named Carolyn, specifically focusing on a discrepancy in the date of an incident. The judge points out that a complaint states the incident occurred in 2002, while Carolyn's testimony places it in 2001.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Carolyn | Witness |
Mentioned in the header as the subject of a cross-examination ("Carolyn - cross"). Her testimony is being discussed.
|
| MR. PAGLIUCA | Attorney |
A speaker in the transcript, addressing the court and discussing testimony.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
A speaker in the transcript, ruling on objections and clarifying points of evidence. Addressed as "your Honor".
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion during a court hearing about the consistency of a witness's (Carolyn's) testimony regarding the timeline of an incident. The court notes a discrepancy between a complaint (stating 2002) and testimony (stating 2001).
Courtroom
Relationships (2)
Mr. Pagliuca addresses the Court as "your Honor," indicating a formal, professional relationship between an attorney and a judge in a courtroom setting.
The document header states "Carolyn - cross," indicating that Mr. Pagliuca is likely an attorney conducting a cross-examination of Carolyn, who is a witness.
Key Quotes (2)
"the first incident described in this complaint took place in 2002, and her testimony is that it took place in 2001."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge summarizing the core inconsistency in the evidence and testimony that is being discussed.)
DOJ-OGR-00018803.jpg
Quote #1
"21 and 27. 27 is called incident two."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge clarifying which specific paragraphs or items of evidence are being referred to in the discussion.)
DOJ-OGR-00018803.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,279 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 205 of 264 1646
LC7VMAX7
Carolyn - cross
LC7VMAX7
Carolyn - cross
1 first couple of incidents, which I think would be, as you're
2 suggesting, time frame inconsistent.
3 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think you admitted those already,
4 your Honor.
5 THE COURT: See? I'm consistent.
6 MR. PAGLIUCA: You are. Yes, you are.
7 The Court admitted paragraph 21, I think, as the -- 21
8 and 27.
9 THE COURT: Okay.
10 MR. PAGLIUCA: And where we started getting --
11 THE COURT: 21 and 27. 27 is called incident two.
12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Right.
13 THE COURT: And then 33, I'm not saying an
14 inconsistency. I'll sustain there.
15 MR. PAGLIUCA: 39 --
16 THE COURT: And to the extent it is, because it could
17 somehow be read as part of a time frame that's off, it's
18 consistent with her -- it falls within the time frame she
19 testified to; it's not specific as to which incident this is.
20 To the extent there's 401 relevance, it's cumulative of the
21 point that you've already gotten in, which is that this -- that
22 the first incident described in this complaint took place in
23 2002, and her testimony is that it took place in 2001.
24 Next.
25 MR. PAGLIUCA: But also to that point, your Honor,
2 suggesting, time frame inconsistent.
3 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think you admitted those already,
4 your Honor.
5 THE COURT: See? I'm consistent.
6 MR. PAGLIUCA: You are. Yes, you are.
7 The Court admitted paragraph 21, I think, as the -- 21
8 and 27.
9 THE COURT: Okay.
10 MR. PAGLIUCA: And where we started getting --
11 THE COURT: 21 and 27. 27 is called incident two.
12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Right.
13 THE COURT: And then 33, I'm not saying an
14 inconsistency. I'll sustain there.
15 MR. PAGLIUCA: 39 --
16 THE COURT: And to the extent it is, because it could
17 somehow be read as part of a time frame that's off, it's
18 consistent with her -- it falls within the time frame she
19 testified to; it's not specific as to which incident this is.
20 To the extent there's 401 relevance, it's cumulative of the
21 point that you've already gotten in, which is that this -- that
22 the first incident described in this complaint took place in
23 2002, and her testimony is that it took place in 2001.
24 Next.
25 MR. PAGLIUCA: But also to that point, your Honor,
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018803
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document