Unnamed Counsel
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Unnamed Judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. PAGLIUCA
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed judge ('your Honor')
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kate
|
Client |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Trial | A trial proceeding where a witness (Brune) is being questioned about a juror's behavior and a not... | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A judge addresses a dispute between counsel regarding the scope of questioning during a witness's... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-02-24 | Court proceeding | An attorney is presenting an oral argument to a judge in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Southern District Court | View |
| 2019-12-16 | Court hearing | A judge set the conditions for the pretrial release of two defendants. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018356.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a sidebar discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach, and defense attorney Ms. Sternheim regarding the scope of cross-examination. The government objects to identifying a specific lawyer representing a witness to avoid implying a 'broader conspiracy,' and the Judge rules on what questions are permissible before deciding not to seal the discussion.
DOJ-OGR-00017942.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a judge's remarks during a hearing. The judge explains the reasoning for sustaining an objection related to a prior "Daubert" ruling on the scope of testimony about child grooming. The judge highlights a significant misunderstanding between opposing counsel, Mr. Pagliuca and another unnamed lawyer, but concludes that the violation of the ruling was not intentional.
DOJ-OGR-00016134.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in which a judge provides preliminary instructions to a jury. The judge orders the jury not to discuss the case with anyone and explains that all parties and counsel are forbidden from interacting with them. The judge also details the courtroom's COVID-19 safety measures, including the use of a Plexiglas enclosure with a HEPA filter for witnesses and lawyers during testimony and opening statements.
DOJ-OGR-00021968.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 16, 2019, detailing a judge's ruling on the conditions for pretrial release for two codefendants. The judge imposes several conditions, including the surrender of all personal and duty firearms and permits, the posting of a $100,000 bond, the surrender of all travel documents, and a strict no-contact order between the defendants unless in the presence of their counsel.
DOJ-OGR-00013418.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Direct Examination of witness Rodgers) filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony reviews specific flight logs: Flight 1106 on May 5, 1998 (Teterboro to Bedford with Epstein and one other passenger) and Flight 818 on March 29, 1996 (Van Nuys to Santa Fe with Epstein as the sole passenger). The witness confirms they piloted these flights but did not pilot flights 819 and 820.
Argument regarding opposing counsel's failure to investigate
An attorney argues before a judge that the opposing counsel's failure to investigate a matter was not a strategic choice ('sandbagging') but rather carelessness and ineptitude, which constitutes prejudice in the case.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity