DOJ-OGR-00018806.jpg
608 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
608 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, presided over by a judge. The discussion centers on whether a witness's testimony about the frequency of an act (up to four times a week) is inconsistent with a complaint stating it occurred twice a month. The attorneys debate the significance of the time frame and the conflicting frequencies mentioned in the testimony versus the complaint.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MS. COMEY | Attorney (implied) |
Speaker in the transcript, arguing that a witness's testimony is not necessarily inconsistent with a complaint due to...
|
| Mr. Pagliuca | Attorney (implied) |
Speaker in the transcript, arguing that a witness's testimony about the frequency of an event contradicts a written c...
|
| Carolyn | Witness |
Mentioned in the header as the person being cross-examined. Her testimony is the subject of the legal argument.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaker in the transcript, moderating the legal argument and providing procedural instructions.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the document as the court reporting service.
|
| government | Government |
Mentioned by Mr. Pagliuca in the phrase "the argument from the government."
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the name of the court reporting company, "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
|
Relationships (1)
They are presenting opposing legal arguments to the court regarding the interpretation and consistency of witness testimony versus a written complaint.
Key Quotes (3)
"I don't think the witness testified to a particular time frame when the penetration actually took place. And so I don't know that we can say that any particular paragraph is necessarily inconsistent..."Source
— MS. COMEY
(Arguing against the inconsistency of a document by pointing out the witness's testimony lacked a specific time frame.)
DOJ-OGR-00018806.jpg
Quote #1
"You're not moving the whole document. We've established that. So one paragraph at a time."Source
— THE COURT
(Instructing Mr. Pagliuca on the proper procedure for introducing a document as evidence.)
DOJ-OGR-00018806.jpg
Quote #2
"Well, she testified here that it was more frequent than what's alleged. So that's one problem with the argument from the government."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Countering Ms. Comey's argument by stating the witness testified to a higher frequency of events than what was written in the complaint.)
DOJ-OGR-00018806.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,513 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 208 of 264 1649
LC7VMAX7 Carolyn - cross
LC7VMAX7 Carolyn - cross
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, may I clarify on that?
I don't think the witness testified to a particular time frame when the penetration actually took place. And so I don't know that we can say that any particular paragraph is necessarily inconsistent, because I don't think she testified to a time frame. I don't know that she would remember a particular time frame. I think that this could be more readily accomplished to the extent Mr. Pagliuca wants to point out that this complaint does not contain a reference to that particular sex act. I think he can ask her the question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I think the document itself has value --
THE COURT: You're not moving the whole document. We've established that. So one paragraph at a time.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. The paragraphs have value --
THE COURT: And you'll respond to Ms. Comey's point that it's only inconsistent if the time frame matches up with the time frame that she's testified as to penetration.
Do you have a response to that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, she testified here that it was more frequent than what's alleged. So that's one problem with the argument from the government. I think she testified here that it was up to four times a week that she was going. And this complaint goes month by month, two times a month. That's what it talks about. That's what this is. So that's another
I don't think the witness testified to a particular time frame when the penetration actually took place. And so I don't know that we can say that any particular paragraph is necessarily inconsistent, because I don't think she testified to a time frame. I don't know that she would remember a particular time frame. I think that this could be more readily accomplished to the extent Mr. Pagliuca wants to point out that this complaint does not contain a reference to that particular sex act. I think he can ask her the question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I think the document itself has value --
THE COURT: You're not moving the whole document. We've established that. So one paragraph at a time.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. The paragraphs have value --
THE COURT: And you'll respond to Ms. Comey's point that it's only inconsistent if the time frame matches up with the time frame that she's testified as to penetration.
Do you have a response to that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, she testified here that it was more frequent than what's alleged. So that's one problem with the argument from the government. I think she testified here that it was up to four times a week that she was going. And this complaint goes month by month, two times a month. That's what it talks about. That's what this is. So that's another
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00018806
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document