DOJ-OGR-00013218.jpg
523 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
523 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The transcript captures a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge regarding the admissibility of evidence related to an incident. The judge highlights a time frame inconsistency, noting the complaint states an incident occurred in 2002 while the witness testified it happened in 2001, and rules the point cumulative.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Carolyn | Witness |
Mentioned in the header as the subject of a cross-examination ("Carolyn - cross"). Her testimony is being discussed.
|
| PAGLIUCA | Mr. |
An attorney arguing points with the court during the cross-examination.
|
| The Court | Judge |
The judge presiding over the hearing, who is in dialogue with Mr. Pagliuca and making rulings on evidence.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript page as the court reporting service.
|
Timeline (3 events)
Relationships (2)
MR. PAGLIUCA
→
professional
→
THE COURT
Mr. Pagliuca is an attorney addressing the judge ('your Honor') and arguing legal points in a formal court proceeding.
The document header indicates a 'cross' examination of 'Carolyn', implying Mr. Pagliuca is the attorney questioning her in an adversarial context.
Key Quotes (3)
"I think you admitted those already, your Honor."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Responding to the Court's comment about a time frame being inconsistent.)
DOJ-OGR-00013218.jpg
Quote #1
"See? I'm consistent."Source
— THE COURT
(A lighthearted response to Mr. Pagliuca.)
DOJ-OGR-00013218.jpg
Quote #2
"the first incident described in this complaint took place in 2002, and her testimony is that it took place in 2001."Source
— THE COURT
(Explaining the discrepancy between the complaint and the witness's testimony, and ruling the point as cumulative.)
DOJ-OGR-00013218.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,279 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 205 of 264 1646
LC7VMAX7 Carolyn - cross
LC7VMAX7 Carolyn - cross
1 first couple of incidents, which I think would be, as you're
2 suggesting, time frame inconsistent.
3 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think you admitted those already,
4 your Honor.
5 THE COURT: See? I'm consistent.
6 MR. PAGLIUCA: You are. Yes, you are.
7 The Court admitted paragraph 21, I think, as the -- 21
8 and 27.
9 THE COURT: Okay.
10 MR. PAGLIUCA: And where we started getting --
11 THE COURT: 21 and 27. 27 is called incident two.
12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Right.
13 THE COURT: And then 33, I'm not saying an
14 inconsistency. I'll sustain there.
15 MR. PAGLIUCA: 39 --
16 THE COURT: And to the extent it is, because it could
17 somehow be read as part of a time frame that's off, it's
18 consistent with her -- it falls within the time frame she
19 testified to; it's not specific as to which incident this is.
20 To the extent there's 401 relevance, it's cumulative of the
21 point that you've already gotten in, which is that this -- that
22 the first incident described in this complaint took place in
23 2002, and her testimony is that it took place in 2001.
24 Next.
25 MR. PAGLIUCA: But also to that point, your Honor,
2 suggesting, time frame inconsistent.
3 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think you admitted those already,
4 your Honor.
5 THE COURT: See? I'm consistent.
6 MR. PAGLIUCA: You are. Yes, you are.
7 The Court admitted paragraph 21, I think, as the -- 21
8 and 27.
9 THE COURT: Okay.
10 MR. PAGLIUCA: And where we started getting --
11 THE COURT: 21 and 27. 27 is called incident two.
12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Right.
13 THE COURT: And then 33, I'm not saying an
14 inconsistency. I'll sustain there.
15 MR. PAGLIUCA: 39 --
16 THE COURT: And to the extent it is, because it could
17 somehow be read as part of a time frame that's off, it's
18 consistent with her -- it falls within the time frame she
19 testified to; it's not specific as to which incident this is.
20 To the extent there's 401 relevance, it's cumulative of the
21 point that you've already gotten in, which is that this -- that
22 the first incident described in this complaint took place in
23 2002, and her testimony is that it took place in 2001.
24 Next.
25 MR. PAGLIUCA: But also to that point, your Honor,
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013218
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document