A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) detailing a procedural argument between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge. The discussion centers on how to present documents designated for 'refreshing recollection' without exposing identifying information to the public via courtroom screens. The Judge suggests using paper to ensure anonymity, while Mr. Pagliuca argues this is impractical due to the 'thousands of pages' involved.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Pagliuca | Attorney |
Arguing regarding the logistics of presenting documents for refreshing recollection in court.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, issuing orders regarding anonymity and document presentation.
|
| Jurors | Jury |
Mentioned regarding the visibility of their screens to the public.
|
| Members of the public | Public observers |
Concern raised about them seeing identifying information on courtroom screens.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. | ||
| DOJ |
Implied by Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'
|
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the court reporter firm and case context.
|
|
|
Physical location where the discussion is taking place.
|
"THE COURT: Whatever they are, we're protecting anonymity, which is my order."Source
"MR. PAGLIUCA: It's an unwieldy and impossible project here, your Honor."Source
"THE COURT: The way trials have been done for a very long time?"Source
"MR. PAGLIUCA: It is likely there will be -- there are thousands of pages of potential material that will be at issue."Source
Complete text extracted from the document (1,348 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document