MR. PAGLIUCA
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Opposing counsel |
15
Very Strong
|
17 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Legal representative |
14
Very Strong
|
23 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
13
Very Strong
|
20 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Opposing counsel |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Opposing counsel |
11
Very Strong
|
13 | |
|
person
Mr. Alessi
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
37 | |
|
person
Alessi
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
27 | |
|
person
Dr. Dubin
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
Alessi
|
Legal representative |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
4 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
136 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional adversarial |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
MS. POMERANTZ
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Ms. Sternheim
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Rocchio
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
5 | |
|
person
Rocchio
|
Legal representative |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
the witness
|
Professional |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
CAROLYN
|
Adversarial |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Mr. Alessi
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Ms. Maxwell
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Sidebar conference during court proceedings regarding witness testimony inconsistencies. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Maxwell). | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing filing date. | Open Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Courtroom proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Marshal asks if pa... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing of the court transcript. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing/trial proceedings filed on this date | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing/filing regarding cross-examination arguments. | Court (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing of transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Procedural discussion regarding witness materials (binder) involving Pagliuca and Pomerantz. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Start of cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding scheduling of legal briefs during trial. | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court Testimony | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding (sidebar/argument without jury) regarding the admissibility of Exhibit C4 (a sta... | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings regarding readiness for a specific individual and instruction to bring in the j... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), specifically discussin... | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing/sidebar regarding admissibility of testimony. | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing discussing redaction procedures for a letter and Exhibit A, while waiting for juror... | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Cross-examination of Juan Alessi in court regarding exhibit JA-1. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Alessi in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Maxwell). Discussion concerns cross-exam... | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony filing date. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 20 (GX-20) under seal during court proceedings. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing date for the transcript of the cross-examination. | Open Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), specifically discussin... | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018792.jpg
This document is page 194 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca, focusing on verifying her signature on page 19 of Exhibit C8. The defense moves to admit Exhibits C8 and C9, to which prosecutor Ms. Comey objects, and the Court defers the ruling until a break.
DOJ-OGR-00018791.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. Mr. Pagliuca attempts to refresh the witness's memory regarding prior statements made under oath in 2009 and her answers to interrogatories, but the witness expresses confusion. Another attorney, Ms. Comey, repeatedly objects to the line of questioning, and the court sustains her objections.
DOJ-OGR-00018790.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions her about her memory of answering written interrogatories for a lawsuit, which she claims not to recall. The attorneys and the judge then discuss showing Carolyn a portion of her deposition transcript to potentially refresh her recollection.
DOJ-OGR-00018787.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on a complaint Carolyn previously filed against Mr. Epstein and Sarah Kellen. Carolyn states she does not recall certain details of the complaint and denies having reviewed or approved it before her lawyers filed it in federal court.
DOJ-OGR-00018786.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examining a witness named Carolyn. The questioning centers on a paragraph from a 2009 federal complaint against Jeffrey Epstein, which alleges Epstein paid Carolyn $300 after an encounter. The transcript captures a legal objection by another attorney, Ms. Comey, which the judge sustains.
DOJ-OGR-00018785.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn regarding allegations against Jeffrey Epstein. The testimony, read from a legal filing, describes an incident where Carolyn was paid $300 by Epstein to observe a sexual act performed by her friend on him. It also mentions a subsequent telephone call where Epstein requested Carolyn return to his residence to give him a massage.
DOJ-OGR-00018783.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on a complaint (Exhibit C5) where Carolyn made a claim against a Mr. Epstein; Carolyn now states that the complaint, which she previously testified under oath was accurate, was in fact not accurate. Mr. Pagliuca also establishes that a specific paragraph of the complaint does not contain the name "Maxwell."
DOJ-OGR-00018782.jpg
This document is page 184 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca is cross-examining a witness named Carolyn regarding a complaint filed on her behalf by attorney Mr. Willits in 2008 against Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) successfully objects to the admission of defense exhibit C4 on the grounds that it is 'not inconsistent,' leading the defense to request a sidebar.
DOJ-OGR-00018781.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, where they are trying to locate Exhibit C4. The witness states the exhibit is related to her arrest, and another attorney, Ms. Comey, requests to approach the bench.
DOJ-OGR-00018780.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on a previous legal complaint filed on Carolyn's behalf by an attorney named Mr. Willits in state court; specifically, Pagliuca establishes that this 91-page, 209-paragraph complaint did not contain a single mention of Ms. Maxwell's name.
DOJ-OGR-00018779.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning references Carolyn's prior deposition testimony, where she affirmed her trust in her attorneys regarding a complaint she filed. The transcript concludes with Carolyn confirming that the complaint she filed in federal court was not against a Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00018778.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning, led by Mr. Pagliuca, focuses on the timeline of the witness's interactions with the FBI in 2007 and her subsequent filing of two civil complaints in 2008 with the assistance of her lawyer, Richard Willits. The document ends with the attorney directing the witness to a specific prior deposition for review.
DOJ-OGR-00018777.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning covers Carolyn's past, including a 2008 lawsuit she filed against Epstein and Sarah Kellen, her move from Florida to Georgia in 2003, and her legal representation by Jack Scarola for a claim with the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund.
DOJ-OGR-00018776.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination of witness Carolyn) filed on August 10, 2022. The questioning focuses on inconsistencies between the witness's current memory and a statement she gave to the FBI in 2007 regarding who called her about 'Incubus tickets' (Sarah or Epstein). The questioning also establishes that Sarah called the witness to convey that Epstein wanted to take photographs of her.
DOJ-OGR-00018773.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. Mr. Pagliuca questions Carolyn about a statement she made to the FBI in 2007 concerning an incident in a kitchen with a chef, which she confirms. He then asks about a separate visit where a person named Sarah allegedly led her upstairs, which Carolyn denies.
DOJ-OGR-00018772.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning attempts to refresh Carolyn's memory about a prior statement she allegedly made to the FBI in 2007 concerning a chef. Carolyn disputes the attorney's characterization of the statement, claiming the document she was shown mentioned her taking off her panties for $400 but did not mention a chef.
DOJ-OGR-00018770.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The testimony covers Carolyn's 2007 statements to the FBI, confirming she received $300 from Epstein and left his house with Ms. Roberts. The questioning focuses on discrepancies regarding how she obtained Epstein's phone number and the specifics of a phone call she made to 'Sarah' to schedule a massage, noting that someone from Epstein's house (not Epstein himself) returned the call.
DOJ-OGR-00018769.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning focuses on a $300 payment allegedly made by Epstein to Carolyn after a massage. Carolyn provides conflicting answers, first agreeing the money was from Epstein and then stating she didn't know who it was from, before being confronted with a document stating Epstein paid her.
DOJ-OGR-00018768.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Cross-examination of witness Carolyn) filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony details a past encounter involving Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Virginia Roberts (noted as being 18 at the time). The witness confirms statements made to the FBI in 2007 regarding Epstein ordering her to undress and Virginia Roberts having sex with Epstein in her presence.
DOJ-OGR-00018767.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Case 1:20-cr-00330) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by Mr. Pagliuca. The testimony covers a 2007 statement Carolyn gave to the FBI regarding an unidentified older woman, and details a specific incident at Epstein's house where Ms. Roberts (Virginia Roberts Giuffre) led Carolyn upstairs and instructed her to massage Epstein's legs while Roberts massaged his back.
DOJ-OGR-00018762.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details the resumption of proceedings after a lunch break, where the jury returns and the witness, 'Carolyn,' takes the stand to continue cross-examination by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The judge reminds the witness she is under oath and instructs the attorney to adjust his microphone.
DOJ-OGR-00018761.jpg
This court transcript page from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion about a witness named Carolyn. An attorney expresses concern that the jury may wrongly connect Carolyn's schizophrenia to actions by Epstein, while her children's situation is due to her long-standing problems. In response, attorney Ms. Comey requests that sensitive details about Carolyn's family be discussed under seal, a motion the judge grants, moving the proceedings to the robing room.
DOJ-OGR-00018760.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the judge that he should be permitted to cross-examine a witness named Carolyn about her extensive psychiatric history and ongoing drug abuse, claiming she minimized these issues during direct examination. He specifically mentions her history of schizophrenia and having her children removed from her custody.
DOJ-OGR-00018759.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge and attorneys Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Pagliuca, and Ms. Menninger regarding trial procedure. The key topics are the timing of an objection to a potential witness's testimony and the estimated length of the cross-examination for the current witness, Carolyn, with the judge emphasizing the need for efficiency to not waste the jury's time.
DOJ-OGR-00018747.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning establishes that approximately 19 years prior, Carolyn visited a specific house for the first time, accompanied by Virginia Roberts, who led her inside and upstairs. The proceedings are then paused for a lunch break by the judge, who addresses an individual named Mr. Pagliuca.
Cross-examination regarding Craven article
Discussion about the definition and understanding of 'sexual grooming of children' based on a 2006 article.
Juror scheduling and potential trial break
Mr. Pagliuca expresses that he does not want to delay the trial but needs to know if the juror in question is from the main or alternate pool to make a decision, as it affects his prior peremptory challenges.
Objection to Summary Witness
Pagliuca argues that Mr. Buscemi is not an appropriate summary witness under Rule 1006 because he may be analyzing complex records rather than summarizing admitted evidence.
Request for limited exclusion from Rule 615
Mr. Pagliuca requested permission to provide a copy of Dr. Rocchio's testimony to Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus, asking for a limited exclusion from sequestration Rule 615.
Unknown
The Court mentions giving a note to Mr. Pagliuca.
Cross-examination regarding a 2009 deposition
A transcript of a court proceeding where Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about a deposition from October 21, 2009. The witness denies having seen the document and denies taking hallucinogenics. The court and the witness's counsel, Ms. Comey, also speak.
Cross-examination duration
Estimating cross-examination will take an hour to an hour and a half.
Cross-examination regarding a government contract
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Rocchio, about the terms of a government contract. Rocchio confirms the contract is for up to $45,000 at a rate of $450 per hour, and states that no payment has been received yet because an invoice has not been submitted.
Cross-examination regarding a study on disclosure
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Rocchio, about a statement in a study that "Two-thirds of the sample did not disclose right away." Pagliuca points out that the term "right away" is not defined. Rocchio clarifies that the article submitted was a summary and admits to not having examined every underlying study or reference cited.
Admission of evidence (Exhibits A and B)
Mr. Pagliuca moves to admit Exhibit A into evidence, which the court allows after confirming no objection from Ms. Pomerantz. He then begins questioning a witness, referred to as 'Doctor', about Exhibit B.
Basis for witness testimony under Rule 16
Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Court that under Rule 16, he is entitled to examine all materials a witness (Dr. Rocchio) relied on for her testimony. The Court questions the scope of this, suggesting that discarded notes or contracts may not constitute a valid basis for an opinion.
Cross-examination regarding Government Exhibit 6
Discussion regarding a study of 322 articles, specifically regarding delayed reporting of psychological issues by males versus females.
Cross-examination regarding Mr. Epstein, Ms. Jane, and re...
MR. PAGLIUCA questions the witness, Alessi, about Mr. Epstein picking up Ms. Jane and about renovations to a Palm Beach house, referencing Government Exhibit 297 dated 4/4/94.
Witness's personal background information
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Dr. Dubin, to establish her identity and personal background, including her residence, age, marital status, husband's name, and number of children.
Scope of direct examination regarding Dr. Rocchio's testi...
Mr. Pagliuca discusses his intent to question Dr. Rocchio about the concept of "hindsight bias phenomena" from her article on sexual grooming. The Court questions whether everything in a disclosed article is within the scope of the direct examination.
Inconsistency in witness testimony regarding dates of all...
Mr. Pagliuca argues that a witness's testimony should be impeached due to a discrepancy in the timeline of alleged events. He states the indictment and direct testimony mentioned 2001, but the complaint and cross-examination point to a 2002-2003 timeframe.
Admissibility of evidence for impeachment
Mr. Pagliuca argues to admit paragraphs 207 and 208 regarding Sarah Kellen to impeach the witness by omission because Ms. Maxwell's name is not mentioned. The Court sustains the objection, finding the paragraphs inadmissible.
Motion for mistrial due to misuse of evidence
Mr. Pagliuca argues that the government, in its closing argument, misused evidence (Exhibit 52) by encouraging the jury to infer the truth of the matter contained within it, contrary to the court's limiting instruction. He requests a mistrial or, alternatively, a re-instruction to the jury.
Admissibility of paragraphs 207 and 208 for impeachment
Mr. Pagliuca argues to admit paragraphs 207 and 208 concerning Sarah Kellen, claiming they represent impeachment by omission because Ms. Maxwell's name is not mentioned. The Court questions the inconsistency and ultimately sustains the objection, ruling the paragraphs inadmissible on those grounds.
Cross-examination regarding a 2016 statement
Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about a previous statement under oath concerning recommendations for massages from Mr. Epstein's friends.
Cross-examination regarding prior testimony in exhibit 35...
Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about his deposition testimony and discusses the admission of this testimony as evidence with the court.
Cross-examination regarding sexual intercourse with Mr. E...
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about a previous deposition answer where she denied having sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein. The witness confirms the previous answer but then provides a detailed clarification.
Cross-examination regarding prior deposition testimony
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about her deposition testimony from 2009 related to her civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. He directs her to specific pages and lines of the deposition transcript.
Scope of cross-examination regarding a study on grooming ...
Mr. Pagliuca previews his intent to cross-examine a witness about a study (disclosure 3502-018) which concluded that five factors cannot be used to prospectively predict grooming behavior. The Court grants permission, noting it is consistent with the witness's testimony.
Cross-examination regarding past substance abuse
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about her use of alcohol and drugs during the 2002-2003 timeframe, when she was approximately 13 years old.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity