Trove
Sign In Sign Up

MS. POMERANTZ

Person
Mentions
906
Relationships
87
Events
370
Documents
441
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
87 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person Dr. Rocchio
Legal representative
13 Very Strong
10
View
person Ms. Sternheim
Opposing counsel
12 Very Strong
11
View
person MR. PAGLIUCA
Opposing counsel
11 Very Strong
7
View
person A. Farmer
Legal representative
10 Very Strong
6
View
person A. Farmer
Professional
10 Very Strong
13
View
organization The Court
Legal representative
10 Very Strong
7
View
person Ms. Sternheim
Professional
10 Very Strong
7
View
organization The Court
Professional
10 Very Strong
61
View
organization The government
Representative
10 Very Strong
6
View
person Dr. Rocchio
Professional
10 Very Strong
8
View
person MS. MENNINGER
Professional
10 Very Strong
23
View
person MR. PAGLIUCA
Professional
10 Very Strong
5
View
person Mr. Flatley
Professional
10 Very Strong
10
View
person Mr. Everdell
Professional
9 Strong
4
View
person Mr. Flatley
Legal representative
9 Strong
5
View
person Kate
Legal representative
8 Strong
4
View
person MS. MENNINGER
Professional adversarial
8 Strong
4
View
person Mr. Everdell
Opposing counsel
8 Strong
4
View
person Flatley
Legal representative
8 Strong
4
View
person MS. MENNINGER
Opposing counsel
7
3
View
person Rocchio
Legal representative
7
3
View
person Kate
Professional
7
3
View
person MR. ROHRBACH
Professional
7
3
View
person Ms. Drescher
Professional
7
3
View
person DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN
Professional
7
2
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
N/A N/A Jury Selection (Voir Dire) for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Courtroom (Southern Distric... View
N/A N/A Cross-examination testimony of witness Flatley. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Examination of witness 'Kate' Courtroom View
N/A N/A Testimony of Stephen Flatley Courtroom View
N/A N/A Admission of Government Exhibit 5 into evidence. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Conclusion of A. Farmer's testimony. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Calling of witness David Mulligan. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Direct Examination of Lisa Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz Courtroom View
N/A N/A Direct examination testimony regarding sexual abuse disclosure statistics. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Cross-examination of witness 'Kate' regarding exhibits 3513-014. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Admission of Defendant's Exhibit MA1 into evidence under seal. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Cross-examination of witness Rocchio regarding the 'Craven article' and the definition of grooming. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Court testimony regarding the nature of Epstein and Maxwell's relationship. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Admission of Government Exhibit 424 into evidence during the testimony of Mr. Flatley. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Direct examination of Dr. Rocchio regarding Government Exhibit 3. Courtroom View
N/A N/A Direct examination of Jane Courtroom View
N/A N/A Examination of Lisa Rocchio Courtroom View
N/A N/A Court Sidebar/Discussion without Jury Courtroom (Southern Distric... View
N/A Court testimony Witness Kate is questioned by Ms. Pomerantz about a visit to Maxwell's house and is shown Governm... Courtroom View
N/A Court examination Direct examination of ANNIE FARMER by Ms. Pomerantz, starting on page 2049. N/A View
N/A Court examination Redirect examination of ANNIE FARMER by Ms. Pomerantz, starting on page 2213. N/A View
N/A Court examination Direct examination of DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN by Ms. Pomerantz, starting on page 2231. N/A View
N/A Court examination Redirect examination of DAVID JAMES MULLIGAN by Ms. Pomerantz, starting on page 2245. N/A View
N/A Court examination Direct examination of JANICE SWAIN by Ms. Pomerantz, starting on page 2247. N/A View
N/A Court testimony Witness Annie Farmer is questioned by Ms. Pomerantz, identifies the defendant in the courtroom, a... courtroom View

DOJ-OGR-00018382.jpg

This document is page 45 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the trial related to Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It features the direct examination of a witness named Kate by Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony details an incident where Ghislaine Maxwell gave the witness massage oil and closed the door to a small, dimly lit room where Jeffrey Epstein was standing naked, after which the witness gave him a massage.

Court transcript (direct examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018373.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript where a witness named Kate testifies about visiting Ghislaine Maxwell's house for tea. Kate explains she was excited to befriend Maxwell, who was friends with a man Kate was dating. She describes the house's exterior and identifies a photograph of it, marked as Government Exhibit 702, which is then offered into evidence without objection.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018372.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of the trial US v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), specifically the direct examination of a witness named Kate. The testimony establishes that Kate met Maxwell in Paris when Kate was approximately 17 years old, exchanged phone numbers, and was subsequently invited by Maxwell to her house for tea a few weeks later. The prosecutor, Ms. Pomerantz, also introduces a photograph (GX109) taken in the witness's backyard.

Court transcript (trial testimony)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018368.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the direct examination of a witness named 'Kate,' regarding the admission of her driver's license (Government Exhibit 18) under seal to protect her anonymity. Kate testifies that she finished 'some high school' and currently works with women suffering from trauma and substance use disorder.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018367.jpg

Transcript page from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Witness 'Kate' is under direct examination by Ms. Pomerantz. Kate identifies Government Exhibit 16 as her birth certificate. The prosecution then moves to discuss Government Exhibit 18, prompting the Judge to instruct the jury to close their binders temporarily until the evidence is admitted.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018366.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. It details the beginning of the direct examination of a witness using the pseudonym 'Kate' to protect her privacy. The prosecutor, Ms. Pomerantz, requests the jury look at Government Exhibit 16, which is noted as being under seal.

Court transcript (direct examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018364.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The court admits a series of redacted government exhibits into evidence and the government calls its next witness, 'Kate', who will testify under a pseudonym. The judge provides a limiting instruction to the jury regarding Kate's upcoming testimony about her interactions with the defendant and a 'Mr. Epstein'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00018101.jpg

This document is an 'Index of Examination' page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the testimony of three witnesses: Paul Kane, Lisa Rocchio, and Juan Patricio Alessi, detailing the attorneys who questioned them (Rohrbach, Menninger, Pomerantz, Comey) and the corresponding page numbers. It also lists various Government Exhibits (Nos. 761, 298, 297, 299, 606, 113, 114, and 2A/2C-2W) and the pages where they were received into evidence.

Court transcript index / legal filing
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017970.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. During a cross-examination, a witness confirms that a study concluded it is not possible to prospectively or reliably predict 'grooming behavior'. After the witness's confirmation, the questioning attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, concludes his examination.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017963.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio. The questioning concerns literature on child sexual abuse, leading to objections from attorneys Ms. Pomerantz and Mr. Pagliuca regarding the use of the term 'perpetrator' and the scope of the witness's answer. The court overrules these objections and directs the witness to continue.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017962.jpg

This document is page 89 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio regarding psychological concepts including confabulation, delayed disclosure, secondary gain, and malingering. Ms. Pomerantz repeatedly objects to the questioning, and the Court sustains most objections.

Court transcript (cross-examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017961.jpg

This document is a page from the court transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio, where the defense asks about the impact of traumatic brain injury, alcohol, and controlled substances on memory recall and the concept of 'confabulation.' Ms. Pomerantz (prosecution) successfully objects to several questions regarding memory and abuse disclosure, but an objection regarding the definition of confabulation is overruled.

Court transcript (cross-examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017956.jpg

Court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The excerpt captures a procedural discussion between attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Pomerantz regarding a binder of materials (including Daubert hearing testimony and '3500 material') for witness Dr. Rocchio. Following the discussion, the jury enters, and Mr. Pagliuca begins his cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017955.jpg

This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, discusses his intention to use a specific study from John Jay College during cross-examination. The study concluded that certain factors cannot be used to prospectively predict grooming behavior, and Mr. Pagliuca receives permission from the Court to question a witness on these findings.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017950.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the presiding judge. They discuss the permissible scope of cross-examination, with the judge warning against introducing new, undisclosed expert testimony. The judge references a prior Daubert hearing and instructs another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, to object if the rules are violated.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017949.jpg

This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between THE COURT and MS. POMERANTZ regarding the scope of expert testimony and cross-examination. The conversation centers on whether to cross-examine Dr. Rocchio on certain opinions and the Court's qualification of another expert to provide opinions on delayed disclosure in sexual abuse cases. The Court sets boundaries for cross-examination, emphasizing that it will not permit the introduction of undisclosed expert opinions.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017948.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and a lawyer (MS. POMERANTZ). Ms. Pomerantz raises a concern about the scope of questioning by another lawyer, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding a witness's testimony on the delayed disclosure of sexual abuse. The discussion centers on defining the line between permissible cross-examination and improperly soliciting expert opinions.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017945.jpg

This document is page 72 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between Ms. Pomerantz and Mr. Pagliuca before the Judge regarding the scope of cross-examination for an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio. The defense (Pagliuca) argues that topics such as confabulation, the process of storing memories, and the effect of alcohol on memory are relevant to explaining delayed disclosure.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017944.jpg

A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Prosecutor Pomerantz, and Defense Attorney Pagliuca regarding a misunderstanding of a court order, followed by a recess. After the recess, Ms. Pomerantz raises an issue regarding Mr. Pagliuca's intent to cross-examine expert witness Dr. Rocchio on topics outside her direct testimony, specifically mentioning the 'halo effect' and 'suggestive memory'.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017941.jpg

This page is a transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a legal argument between attorney Ms. Pomerantz and the Judge regarding the admissibility of questions related to 'grooming' and 'sexual gratification.' The Judge references a 'Daubert context' (expert witness admissibility) and compares the testimony to a 'pimp-prostitute context.'

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017940.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, and the judge ('THE COURT') after the jury has been excused for a break. Ms. Pomerantz seeks to clarify the record regarding the scope of Dr. Rocchio's testimony, stating the government's understanding that his opinion on the presence of a third party was excluded, and distinguishing this from the defense's theory of 'grooming by proxy'.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017939.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony focuses on the psychological aspects of childhood sexual abuse, specifically the role of trust in treatment. Another attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the line of questioning, leading to rulings from the judge.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017928.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, regarding the factors that place a child at increased risk of sexual abuse. The judge sustains an objection and strikes a portion of the testimony before Dr. Rocchio begins to detail personal risk factors such as prior victimization, health issues, and disadvantaged circumstances.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017926.jpg

This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument during the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to a question from Ms. Pomerantz, claiming it violates a prior agreement with the government. The Court sustains the objection, expressing bafflement at the apparent misunderstanding or breach of the agreement.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00017925.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar conference during the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The Judge admonishes Ms. Pomerantz (prosecution) for approaching a line of questioning regarding 'grooming by proxy' or 'third-party involvement' in a 'pimp-prostitute context,' which the Judge states was precluded or limited during a previous Daubert hearing.

Court transcript (sidebar conference)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
56
As Recipient
4
Total
60

Direct Examination

From: MS. POMERANTZ
To: Mr. Flatley

Questioning regarding metadata dates and titles of Government Exhibits 420, 418R, and 418B.

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

CBP Record Keeping

From: MS. POMERANTZ
To: Officer Aznaran

Questioning regarding whether CBP records in the 1990s were paper and if they were logged in systems prior to 9/11.

Court testimony
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Scheduling and Scope of Cross-Examination

From: MS. POMERANTZ
To: THE COURT

Ms. Pomerantz asks about the timing for the next witness and flags an issue regarding 'hindsight bias' questions being asked of a lay witness who happens to be a psychologist.

Courtroom dialogue
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Clarification on Detective Byrne

From: MS. POMERANTZ
To: THE COURT

Disputing a representation regarding Detective Byrne and noting tech support was available.

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Exhibit Identification

From: Ms. Sternheim
To: MS. POMERANTZ

Exchange regarding identifying exhibit K-8 / 3513-019.

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Redaction Dispute

From: MS. POMERANTZ
To: THE COURT

Discussion regarding a dispute over redactions on page 2370, lines 14 to 18, concerning an objection to a question lacking predicate foundation.

Hearing
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Objection Ruling

From: Judge
To: MS. POMERANTZ

Judge sustains an objection regarding the line of questioning, prohibiting the attorney from drawing associations with other defendants the witness has testified for to avoid prejudice under Rule 403.

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Direct Examination regarding 1995 trip

From: MS. POMERANTZ
To: Annie Farmer

Q&A regarding a trip to NY in 1995, meeting Epstein, and identifying a photo.

Court testimony
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Redirect Examination

From: MS. POMERANTZ
To: Kate

Questioning regarding the emotional significance of compensation funds and potential financial interest in the trial outcome.

Meeting
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Direct Examination

From: MS. POMERANTZ
To: A. Farmer

Questioning regarding travel logistics to New York and payment of flight.

Court testimony
2022-08-10
Communication Source

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search