DOJ-OGR-00017926.jpg
586 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
586 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument during the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to a question from Ms. Pomerantz, claiming it violates a prior agreement with the government. The Court sustains the objection, expressing bafflement at the apparent misunderstanding or breach of the agreement.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. PAGLIUCA | Speaker (likely Attorney) |
Objects to a line of questioning, stating he was assured by the government that this issue would not be raised.
|
| MS. POMERANTZ | Speaker (likely Attorney) |
Defends her line of questioning, arguing it is distinct and not in violation of the Court's ruling.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Sustains the objection raised by Mr. Pagliuca and questions Ms. Pomerantz about whether the question was asked at a D...
|
| Rocchio | Witness |
Mentioned in the header as the subject of a direct examination ("Rocchio - Direct").
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| government | Government agency |
Mentioned by Mr. Pagliuca as having given an assurance that a certain issue would not be raised in questioning.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-08-10
A direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, during which a legal objection was raised and ruled upon by the Court.
Courtroom
Unknown
A Daubert hearing, which the Court references when asking Ms. Pomerantz if the disputed question was asked previously.
Courtroom
circa 2022-08-08
Mr. Pagliuca raised an issue with the government and was assured they would not pursue a certain line of questioning. This is referenced as having happened "two days ago".
Unknown
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the name of the court reporting company, "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
|
Relationships (3)
They are on opposing sides of a legal argument in court. Mr. Pagliuca objects to a question asked by Ms. Pomerantz.
Mr. Pagliuca addresses the Court as "your Honor" and makes a legal objection for the Court to rule upon.
Ms. Pomerantz addresses the Court as "your Honor" and defends her legal position in response to an objection.
Key Quotes (4)
"I raised this issue two days ago, and exactly this issue, and was assured that the government was not going to go to this issue."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Stating the basis for his objection to a line of questioning.)
DOJ-OGR-00017926.jpg
Quote #1
"So I object to any further discussion about this, which is prejudicial, it's outside of the scope of the -- well, it's clearly, in my view, a violation of the Court's ruling."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Formally objecting to the discussion and questioning.)
DOJ-OGR-00017926.jpg
Quote #2
"We had viewed this question as not coming close to the line. We understand the Court's opinion with respect to the presence of a third party. I was not intending to ask that. This is a distinct question."Source
— MS. POMERANTZ
(Defending her question to the Court after the objection.)
DOJ-OGR-00017926.jpg
Quote #3
"I'm sustaining for the reasons I've indicated. I have no idea what happened in a discussion that you raised this and understood them to say they wouldn't do it. It's baffling to me."Source
— THE COURT
(Ruling on the objection and expressing confusion about the apparent breach of an agreement.)
DOJ-OGR-00017926.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,498 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 747 Filed 08/10/22 Page 53 of 228 729
LC2VMAX2 Rocchio - Direct
LC2VMAX2 Rocchio - Direct
1 issue yesterday. I'll move on. That's fine.
2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Let me make a record.
3 I raised this issue two days ago, and exactly this
4 issue, and was assured that the government was not going to go
5 to this issue. And that question exactly was the question that
6 I raised about not going into that question. And because --
7 well, I don't need to get into reasons, but because of
8 disclosures, I raised this issue, your Honor.
9 So I object to any further discussion about this,
10 which is prejudicial, it's outside of the scope of the -- well,
11 it's clearly, in my view, a violation of the Court's ruling.
12 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I just want to be clear
13 for the record. We had viewed this question as not coming
14 close to the line. We understand the Court's opinion with
15 respect to the presence of a third party. I was not intending
16 to ask that. This is a distinct question.
17 THE COURT: Did you ask this question at the Daubert?
18 MS. POMERANTZ: I think we can check the transcript,
19 your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Outside of the context of -- in any event,
21 I'm sustaining for the reasons I've indicated. I have no idea
22 what happened in a discussion that you raised this and
23 understood them to say they wouldn't do it. It's baffling to
24 me.
25 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, just to be clear, I ran
2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Let me make a record.
3 I raised this issue two days ago, and exactly this
4 issue, and was assured that the government was not going to go
5 to this issue. And that question exactly was the question that
6 I raised about not going into that question. And because --
7 well, I don't need to get into reasons, but because of
8 disclosures, I raised this issue, your Honor.
9 So I object to any further discussion about this,
10 which is prejudicial, it's outside of the scope of the -- well,
11 it's clearly, in my view, a violation of the Court's ruling.
12 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I just want to be clear
13 for the record. We had viewed this question as not coming
14 close to the line. We understand the Court's opinion with
15 respect to the presence of a third party. I was not intending
16 to ask that. This is a distinct question.
17 THE COURT: Did you ask this question at the Daubert?
18 MS. POMERANTZ: I think we can check the transcript,
19 your Honor.
20 THE COURT: Outside of the context of -- in any event,
21 I'm sustaining for the reasons I've indicated. I have no idea
22 what happened in a discussion that you raised this and
23 understood them to say they wouldn't do it. It's baffling to
24 me.
25 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, just to be clear, I ran
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017926
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document