DOJ-OGR-00016658.jpg
593 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
593 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a sidebar conversation between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge. Mr. Pagliuca objects to the cross-examination of expert witness Dr. Loftus focusing on a single study, arguing it's prejudicial and inconsistent with a prior ruling involving another expert, Dr. Rocchio. The discussion revolves around the proper use of studies to impeach a witness versus introducing affirmative evidence.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. PAGLIUCA | Attorney |
Speaking at a sidebar, making an objection to a line of questioning during the cross-examination of Dr. Loftus.
|
| Your Honor | Judge |
Addressed by Mr. Pagliuca during an objection.
|
| Dr. Rocchio | Expert Witness |
Mentioned by Mr. Pagliuca as a person he previously attempted to cross-examine regarding a study on hindsight bias.
|
| Dr. Loftus | Expert Witness |
The person being cross-examined, who is testifying about a broad range of studies.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaking to Mr. Pagliuca, asking for clarification on a previous objection and questioning his intent.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A sidebar discussion during a trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) regarding an objection made by Mr. Pagliuca during the cross-examination of Dr. Loftus.
Courtroom
Relationships (3)
Mr. Pagliuca, an attorney, is addressing the judge ('Your Honor', 'THE COURT') to argue a legal objection during a trial.
Mr. Pagliuca is cross-examining Dr. Loftus, who is testifying as an expert witness.
Mr. Pagliuca refers to a past event where he attempted to cross-examine Dr. Rocchio, an expert witness for the prosecution.
Key Quotes (3)
"Your Honor, the objection is that this is far afield from her expert testimony. We're picking one study out of hundreds and then going into it."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Making an objection during the cross-examination of Dr. Loftus.)
DOJ-OGR-00016658.jpg
Quote #1
"You were trying to introduce affirmative evidence through that study and not using it to impeach her reliance on it; correct?"Source
— THE COURT
(Questioning Mr. Pagliuca about his intent during a previous cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio.)
DOJ-OGR-00016658.jpg
Quote #2
"I disagree. I was trying to impeach her and using some of the words from that study to impeach her on what her opinions were during trial. That was the purpose"Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Responding to the Court's characterization of his previous attempt to use a study during cross-examination.)
DOJ-OGR-00016658.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,720 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 175 of 246 2470
LCGVMAX5
Loftus - cross
LCGVMAX5
Loftus - cross
1 (At sidebar)
2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, the objection is that this
3 is far afield from her expert testimony. We're picking one
4 study out of hundreds and then going into it.
5 When I attempted to cross-examine Dr. Rocchio on a
6 study that she relied on, I was precluded from doing that and I
7 think the objection was similar. And the Court sustained the
8 objection saying, you know, we're not going to go into all of
9 the studies that she may or may not have relied on in support
10 of her testimony.
11 This is similar to that. Dr. Loftus is testifying
12 about a broad range of studies; and to single one out is, you
13 know, overly prejudicial, not very helpful to the jury, doesn't
14 go to any of the opinions that she's offered in this case.
15 THE COURT: I'm sorry, can you remind me of the
16 parallel objection.
17 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. There was a study that was given
18 to the prosecution by Dr. Rocchio on hindsight bias and --
19 basically hindsight bias and what went into hindsight bias.
20 THE COURT: You were trying to introduce affirmative
21 evidence through that study and not using it to impeach her
22 reliance on it; correct?
23 MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree. I was trying to impeach
24 her and using some of the words from that study to impeach her
25 on what her opinions were during trial. That was the purpose
2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, the objection is that this
3 is far afield from her expert testimony. We're picking one
4 study out of hundreds and then going into it.
5 When I attempted to cross-examine Dr. Rocchio on a
6 study that she relied on, I was precluded from doing that and I
7 think the objection was similar. And the Court sustained the
8 objection saying, you know, we're not going to go into all of
9 the studies that she may or may not have relied on in support
10 of her testimony.
11 This is similar to that. Dr. Loftus is testifying
12 about a broad range of studies; and to single one out is, you
13 know, overly prejudicial, not very helpful to the jury, doesn't
14 go to any of the opinions that she's offered in this case.
15 THE COURT: I'm sorry, can you remind me of the
16 parallel objection.
17 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. There was a study that was given
18 to the prosecution by Dr. Rocchio on hindsight bias and --
19 basically hindsight bias and what went into hindsight bias.
20 THE COURT: You were trying to introduce affirmative
21 evidence through that study and not using it to impeach her
22 reliance on it; correct?
23 MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree. I was trying to impeach
24 her and using some of the words from that study to impeach her
25 on what her opinions were during trial. That was the purpose
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016658
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document