This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal argument between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge regarding the permissible scope of cross-examination for a psychology expert witness. The discussion focuses on the concept of 'delayed disclosure' in sexual abuse cases and whether the defense can question the expert about alternative reasons for such delays beyond what was presented in direct testimony.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Pagliuca | Attorney |
Defense attorney arguing for the scope of cross-examination regarding an expert witness.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding judge managing the scope of questioning allowed in court.
|
| Rocchio | Witness |
Name appears in the header 'Rocchio - Direct', indicating the witness currently on the stand or whose testimony is be...
|
| Unidentified Female Expert | Expert Witness (Psychology) |
referred to as 'she', an expert in psychology and trauma testifying about delayed disclosure.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting agency listed in the footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by Bates stamp prefix DOJ-OGR).
|
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Likely Southern District of New York (SDNY) based on the case context and reporter info.
|
"Well, she's being proffered as an expert in psychology, to begin with, and trauma."Source
"And the interplay between trauma, psychology, and delayed disclosure is simply not you're close to somebody and, therefore, you don't disclose or you feel embarrassed about something and you don't disclose."Source
"I think that we're entitled to bring those things out on this expert who is testifying as a blind expert."Source
"It's just fair game for cross-examination."Source
Complete text extracted from the document (1,514 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document