DOJ-OGR-00018805.jpg
591 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
591 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, before a judge. Ms. Comey defends a legal complaint against claims of inconsistency with a witness's testimony, particularly regarding the omission of certain details about 'sex acts'. The judge ultimately rules on the matter related to 'paragraph 39', sustaining an objection by finding a testified detail to be significant.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Carolyn | Witness |
Mentioned in the header as the subject of a cross-examination.
|
| MS. COMEY | Attorney |
Speaking in court, arguing that a witness's testimony is not inconsistent with a legal complaint and defending the om...
|
| MR. PAGLIUCA | Attorney |
Speaking in court, disagreeing with Ms. Comey's argument.
|
| your Honor | Judge |
Addressed by both Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, presiding over the case.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the document, likely the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion during a court proceeding where attorneys Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca argue about the consistency of a witness's testimony with a legal complaint, specifically regarding paragraph 39. The judge listens to the arguments and makes a ruling.
Relationships (1)
They are opposing counsel in a legal proceeding, arguing different sides of an issue before a judge.
Key Quotes (4)
"She testified she was going frequently, certainly at least twice a month, through 2002. So that's not inconsistent."Source
— MS. COMEY
(Arguing that the witness's testimony about the frequency of events does not contradict the legal complaint.)
DOJ-OGR-00018805.jpg
Quote #1
"So it is not to be expected that if she had told her attorneys about the other sex acts, that they would have included it."Source
— MS. COMEY
(Justifying the omission of certain details from a legal complaint, suggesting they were not legally necessary to include.)
DOJ-OGR-00018805.jpg
Quote #2
"I disagree, your Honor."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Responding to Ms. Comey's argument about the theory of omissions.)
DOJ-OGR-00018805.jpg
Quote #3
"This one, there are details included. The one detail that was testified to is a significant detail. So with respect to 39, I'll overrule. Sorry, I'll sustain."Source
— THE COURT
(Making a ruling on the argument concerning paragraph 39, finding a testified detail to be significant and sustaining an objection.)
DOJ-OGR-00018805.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,530 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 207 of 264 1648
LC7VMAX7 Carolyn - cross
LC7VMAX7 Carolyn - cross
1 respond to that for paragraph 39?
2 MS. COMEY: So for 39, your Honor, first with respect
3 to the time frame, I think the first clause is for the second
4 time in that month of that year. That's not inconsistent with
5 what the witness testified to. She testified she was going
6 frequently, certainly at least twice a month, through 2002. So
7 that's not inconsistent.
8 With respect to the sex acts, I think here is part of
9 the issue with taking a legal document and trying to suggest
10 that the witness should have included every single detail in
11 it. It is not necessarily the case that in order to make out
12 the legal claims in this complaint, that a lawyer would have
13 needed to include anything other than fondling and
14 masturbation. So it is not to be expected that if she had told
15 her attorneys about the other sex acts, that they would have
16 included it. And so I don't think the theory of omissions
17 works with respect to the sex acts.
18 MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree, your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Yes, I imagine.
20 MR. PAGLIUCA: I mean, Ms. Comey doesn't do civil
21 work, but it is significant. And it is significant for many
22 reasons. And in particular --
23 THE COURT: This one, there are details included. The
24 one detail that was testified to is a significant detail. So
25 with respect to 39, I'll overrule. Sorry, I'll sustain.
2 MS. COMEY: So for 39, your Honor, first with respect
3 to the time frame, I think the first clause is for the second
4 time in that month of that year. That's not inconsistent with
5 what the witness testified to. She testified she was going
6 frequently, certainly at least twice a month, through 2002. So
7 that's not inconsistent.
8 With respect to the sex acts, I think here is part of
9 the issue with taking a legal document and trying to suggest
10 that the witness should have included every single detail in
11 it. It is not necessarily the case that in order to make out
12 the legal claims in this complaint, that a lawyer would have
13 needed to include anything other than fondling and
14 masturbation. So it is not to be expected that if she had told
15 her attorneys about the other sex acts, that they would have
16 included it. And so I don't think the theory of omissions
17 works with respect to the sex acts.
18 MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree, your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Yes, I imagine.
20 MR. PAGLIUCA: I mean, Ms. Comey doesn't do civil
21 work, but it is significant. And it is significant for many
22 reasons. And in particular --
23 THE COURT: This one, there are details included. The
24 one detail that was testified to is a significant detail. So
25 with respect to 39, I'll overrule. Sorry, I'll sustain.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018805
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document