DOJ-OGR-00017950.jpg
592 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
592 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the presiding judge. They discuss the permissible scope of cross-examination, with the judge warning against introducing new, undisclosed expert testimony. The judge references a prior Daubert hearing and instructs another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, to object if the rules are violated.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. PAGLIUCA | Attorney |
A speaker in the court transcript, arguing the scope of his cross-examination with the judge.
|
| The Court | Judge |
A speaker in the court transcript, presiding over the hearing and setting rules for cross-examination. Referred to as...
|
| Ms. Pomerantz | Attorney |
Addressed by the Court, who instructs her to object if Mr. Pagliuca attempts to insert undisclosed expert testimony.
|
| Rocchio | Witness |
Mentioned in the header as the subject of the direct examination ('Rocchio - Direct'), implying they are the witness ...
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-08-10
A dialogue between Mr. Pagliuca and the Court regarding the scope of cross-examination of a witness (Rocchio). The discussion references a prior Daubert hearing and the rules against introducing undisclosed expert testimony.
Courtroom (implied)
A prior hearing mentioned in the transcript where literature and the scope of examination were discussed.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (2)
Mr. Pagliuca is an attorney arguing a point before the judge (The Court) in a formal court proceeding.
The Court addresses Ms. Pomerantz directly, instructing her on a legal procedure (objecting), indicating she is an attorney involved in the case.
Key Quotes (3)
"much of my cross-examination is similar to that which was -- that occurred that your Honor pointed out during the hearing was -- may be appropriate in front of a jury."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Explaining to the judge the nature of his intended cross-examination questions, referencing a prior comment by the judge.)
DOJ-OGR-00017950.jpg
Quote #1
"I understand the concern, at least with respect to suggestive memory. We've established there's some fair grounds to cross to make sure she's considered other bases."Source
— THE COURT
(Acknowledging the legitimacy of some cross-examination while setting boundaries.)
DOJ-OGR-00017950.jpg
Quote #2
"I won't allow insertion of undisclosed expert testimony via cross-examination questions, and you won't do that. And you'll object, Ms. Pomerantz, if so."Source
— THE COURT
(Issuing a direct order to Mr. Pagliuca and instructing Ms. Pomerantz on how to respond to a violation.)
DOJ-OGR-00017950.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,490 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 747 Filed 08/10/22 Page 77 of 228 753
LC2VMAX2 Rocchio - Direct
LC2VMAX2 Rocchio - Direct
1 expert testimony through your cross-examination.
2 MR. PAGLIUCA: I do not intend to do that, your Honor.
3 I would say that absent a few other questions, much of my
4 cross-examination -- and not, frankly, on the topic of the
5 literature that was discussed during the Daubert hearing, but
6 much of my cross-examination is similar to that which was --
7 that occurred that your Honor pointed out during the hearing
8 was -- may be appropriate in front of a jury. That was a
9 comment that the Court made.
10 THE COURT: I did say that.
11 MR. PAGLIUCA: That was not helpful to you during the
12 Daubert hearing, but it might be helpful in front of a jury.
13 So that is some of the cross-examination.
14 THE COURT: I think I particularly said that when you
15 were spending a fair amount of time on hourly fees.
16 MR. PAGLIUCA: I understand, your Honor.
17 THE COURT: Has very little effect on me.
18 MR. PAGLIUCA: I understand.
19 THE COURT: I understand the concern, at least with
20 respect to suggestive memory. We've established there's some
21 fair grounds to cross to make sure she's considered other
22 bases. That's kind of classic cross of an expert. I won't
23 allow insertion of undisclosed expert testimony via
24 cross-examination questions, and you won't do that. And you'll
25 object, Ms. Pomerantz, if so.
2 MR. PAGLIUCA: I do not intend to do that, your Honor.
3 I would say that absent a few other questions, much of my
4 cross-examination -- and not, frankly, on the topic of the
5 literature that was discussed during the Daubert hearing, but
6 much of my cross-examination is similar to that which was --
7 that occurred that your Honor pointed out during the hearing
8 was -- may be appropriate in front of a jury. That was a
9 comment that the Court made.
10 THE COURT: I did say that.
11 MR. PAGLIUCA: That was not helpful to you during the
12 Daubert hearing, but it might be helpful in front of a jury.
13 So that is some of the cross-examination.
14 THE COURT: I think I particularly said that when you
15 were spending a fair amount of time on hourly fees.
16 MR. PAGLIUCA: I understand, your Honor.
17 THE COURT: Has very little effect on me.
18 MR. PAGLIUCA: I understand.
19 THE COURT: I understand the concern, at least with
20 respect to suggestive memory. We've established there's some
21 fair grounds to cross to make sure she's considered other
22 bases. That's kind of classic cross of an expert. I won't
23 allow insertion of undisclosed expert testimony via
24 cross-examination questions, and you won't do that. And you'll
25 object, Ms. Pomerantz, if so.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017950
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document