DOJ-OGR-00013217.jpg
544 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
6
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
544 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, discussing inconsistencies in dates provided in testimony versus an indictment. Mr. Pagliuca and The Court discuss a witness's (likely Carolyn) direct testimony and cross-examination regarding the dates of alleged incidents, specifically contrasting July 2002, 2001, and 2002-2003/2004. The discussion focuses on impeachment based on these chronological discrepancies in the alleged events.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. PAGLIUCA | Speaker |
Participating in court discussion about inconsistencies in testimony and indictment dates.
|
| THE COURT | Speaker |
Presiding over the court discussion, asking clarifying questions.
|
| Carolyn | Subject/Witness (implied) |
Mentioned in the context of 'Carolyn - cross' and her testimony regarding dates of incidents.
|
| witness | Witness |
Testified to events alleged in the indictment.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. |
Court reporting agency
|
Timeline (6 events)
Relationships (3)
Engaging in a verbal exchange during court proceedings.
The document title mentions 'Carolyn - cross' and subsequent discussion refers to 'her' testimony and 'the witness'.
Witness testified to events alleged in the indictment.
Key Quotes (4)
"MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, 33. The first inconsistency with the direct testimony is the date, July of 2002."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013217.jpg
Quote #1
"MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, the indictment says 2001. In her direct testimony she said 2001, and on the cross-examination, she admitted to 2002."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013217.jpg
Quote #2
"THE COURT: So you have to use a full sentence so I can track you. She said the first incident was in 2001."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013217.jpg
Quote #3
"MR. PAGLIUCA: This is chronological through this complaint. This complaint goes from -- 2002 is the beginning spot, and goes through 2003. So the entirety of the allegation is that these events occurred between 2002 and 2003, not 2001 and 2004."Source
DOJ-OGR-00013217.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,329 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 204 of 264 1645
LC7VMAX7
Carolyn
cross
1
THE COURT:
Okay. Should I look at 33?
2
MR. PAGLIUCA:
Yes, 33. The first inconsistency with
3
the direct testimony is the date, July of 2002.
4
THE COURT: I don't know
so again, return to
5
what's the inconsistency?
6
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, the indictment says 2001. In her
7
direct testimony she said 2001, and on the cross-examination,
8
she admitted to 2002.
9
THE COURT:
So you have to use a full sentence so I
10
can track you. She said the first incident was in 2001.
11
MR. PAGLIUCA:
Yes.
12
THE COURT: She then talked about 100 additional
13
incidents --
14
MR. PAGLIUCA: Right.
15
THE COURT:
over the course of at least a couple of
16
years. So what's inconsistent in July of 2002, she again
17
returned to?
18
19
MR. PAGLIUCA: This is chronological through this
complaint. This complaint goes from
2002 is the beginning
20
spot, and goes through 2003. So the entirety of the allegation
21
is that these events occurred between 2002 and 2003, not 2001
22
and 2004. And so this is impeachment on the time frame that is
23
alleged in the indictment and testified to by the witness on
24
direct examination.
25
THE COURT: Is there a paragraph that talks about the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013217
LC7VMAX7
Carolyn
cross
1
THE COURT:
Okay. Should I look at 33?
2
MR. PAGLIUCA:
Yes, 33. The first inconsistency with
3
the direct testimony is the date, July of 2002.
4
THE COURT: I don't know
so again, return to
5
what's the inconsistency?
6
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, the indictment says 2001. In her
7
direct testimony she said 2001, and on the cross-examination,
8
she admitted to 2002.
9
THE COURT:
So you have to use a full sentence so I
10
can track you. She said the first incident was in 2001.
11
MR. PAGLIUCA:
Yes.
12
THE COURT: She then talked about 100 additional
13
incidents --
14
MR. PAGLIUCA: Right.
15
THE COURT:
over the course of at least a couple of
16
years. So what's inconsistent in July of 2002, she again
17
returned to?
18
19
MR. PAGLIUCA: This is chronological through this
complaint. This complaint goes from
2002 is the beginning
20
spot, and goes through 2003. So the entirety of the allegation
21
is that these events occurred between 2002 and 2003, not 2001
22
and 2004. And so this is impeachment on the time frame that is
23
alleged in the indictment and testified to by the witness on
24
direct examination.
25
THE COURT: Is there a paragraph that talks about the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013217
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document