DOJ-OGR-00013220.jpg
591 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
591 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, in front of a judge. The discussion focuses on whether omissions in a legal complaint regarding specific sex acts are inconsistent with a witness's testimony. The judge concludes that the testified detail is significant and sustains an objection related to the matter.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Carolyn | Witness |
Mentioned in the header 'Carolyn - cross', indicating she is the witness whose testimony is being discussed during cr...
|
| MS. COMEY | Attorney |
A speaker in the transcript, arguing that a witness's testimony is not inconsistent with a legal complaint and that o...
|
| MR. PAGLIUCA | Attorney |
A speaker in the transcript, arguing against Ms. Comey's position and asserting that the details in question are sign...
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
The presiding judge in the proceeding, addressed as 'your Honor', who listens to the arguments and makes a ruling.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the document; the court reporting agency that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A legal argument occurred between attorneys Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca before a judge regarding the significance of details omitted from a legal complaint when compared to a witness's testimony about sex acts.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (3)
They are opposing counsel in a legal proceeding, with Mr. Pagliuca explicitly disagreeing with Ms. Comey's argument.
Ms. Comey is an attorney presenting an argument to the presiding judge, whom she addresses as 'your Honor'.
Mr. Pagliuca is an attorney presenting a counter-argument to the presiding judge, whom he addresses as 'your Honor'.
Key Quotes (4)
"It is not necessarily the case that in order to make out the legal claims in this complaint, that a lawyer would have needed to include anything other than fondling and masturbation."Source
— MS. COMEY
(Arguing that the omission of other sex acts from a legal complaint is not a fatal flaw or inconsistency.)
DOJ-OGR-00013220.jpg
Quote #1
"I disagree, your Honor."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Directly opposing the argument made by Ms. Comey.)
DOJ-OGR-00013220.jpg
Quote #2
"I mean, Ms. Comey doesn't do civil work, but it is significant. And it is significant for many reasons."Source
— MR. PAGLIUCA
(Countering Ms. Comey's argument by asserting the significance of the details and questioning her relevant experience.)
DOJ-OGR-00013220.jpg
Quote #3
"The one detail that was testified to is a significant detail. So with respect to 39, I'll overrule. Sorry, I'll sustain."Source
— THE COURT
(Making a final ruling on the argument, agreeing that the detail is significant and sustaining the objection.)
DOJ-OGR-00013220.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,530 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 207 of 264
LC7VMAX7 Carolyn - cross 1648
LC7VMAX7 Carolyn - cross 1648
1 respond to that for paragraph 39?
2 MS. COMEY: So for 39, your Honor, first with respect
3 to the time frame, I think the first clause is for the second
4 time in that month of that year. That's not inconsistent with
5 what the witness testified to. She testified she was going
6 frequently, certainly at least twice a month, through 2002. So
7 that's not inconsistent.
8 With respect to the sex acts, I think here is part of
9 the issue with taking a legal document and trying to suggest
10 that the witness should have included every single detail in
11 it. It is not necessarily the case that in order to make out
12 the legal claims in this complaint, that a lawyer would have
13 needed to include anything other than fondling and
14 masturbation. So it is not to be expected that if she had told
15 her attorneys about the other sex acts, that they would have
16 included it. And so I don't think the theory of omissions
17 works with respect to the sex acts.
18 MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree, your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Yes, I imagine.
20 MR. PAGLIUCA: I mean, Ms. Comey doesn't do civil
21 work, but it is significant. And it is significant for many
22 reasons. And in particular --
23 THE COURT: This one, there are details included. The
24 one detail that was testified to is a significant detail. So
25 with respect to 39, I'll overrule. Sorry, I'll sustain.
2 MS. COMEY: So for 39, your Honor, first with respect
3 to the time frame, I think the first clause is for the second
4 time in that month of that year. That's not inconsistent with
5 what the witness testified to. She testified she was going
6 frequently, certainly at least twice a month, through 2002. So
7 that's not inconsistent.
8 With respect to the sex acts, I think here is part of
9 the issue with taking a legal document and trying to suggest
10 that the witness should have included every single detail in
11 it. It is not necessarily the case that in order to make out
12 the legal claims in this complaint, that a lawyer would have
13 needed to include anything other than fondling and
14 masturbation. So it is not to be expected that if she had told
15 her attorneys about the other sex acts, that they would have
16 included it. And so I don't think the theory of omissions
17 works with respect to the sex acts.
18 MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree, your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Yes, I imagine.
20 MR. PAGLIUCA: I mean, Ms. Comey doesn't do civil
21 work, but it is significant. And it is significant for many
22 reasons. And in particular --
23 THE COURT: This one, there are details included. The
24 one detail that was testified to is a significant detail. So
25 with respect to 39, I'll overrule. Sorry, I'll sustain.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013220
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document