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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-01-15 | Direct examination | Direct examination of Dr. Rocchio in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Court filing date of the transcript document. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing (filing date) regarding the admissibility of evidence (contact book vs household ma... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Admission of Exhibit 662-RR | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of Dr. Dubin resumes in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Alessi in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Cross-examination of witness Carolyn in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of Dr. Dubin in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding: Cross-examination of witness Carolyn. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding/hearing, likely a cross-examination involving 'Carolyn'. Discussion includes fou... | Court (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving cross-examination of witness Dubin. | Southern District (implied NY) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing date of the court transcript document. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court Recess | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Swearing in of witness Dr. Eva Dubin | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony regarding Government Exhibit 15 (GX-15) | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding opening statements and admissibility of arguments about witness coaching. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing date for the transcript document. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Sidebar conference regarding a procedural error during the cross-examination of witness Alessi. | Courtroom (Sidebar) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing date of the transcript document (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Discussion regarding witne... | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Cross-examination of Mr. Alessi | Courtroom (Case 1:20-cr-003... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Legal argument regarding the scope of cross-examination for witness Carolyn. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing involving the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Shawn in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018745.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The testimony establishes that Carolyn met Virginia Roberts when Roberts was 18 and accompanied her to Jeffrey Epstein's house in May or June of 2002. Carolyn confirms she had never met Epstein or visited his house prior to this event and did not know his name until they arrived.
DOJ-OGR-00018743.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examining a witness named Carolyn. The questioning focuses on Carolyn's prior deposition testimony from 2009, which was given in connection with a civil lawsuit she had filed against Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. Mr. Pagliuca attempts to present specific pages and lines from the old deposition to the witness in court.
DOJ-OGR-00018742.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Carolyn testifies about being instructed by both a "Ms. Roberts" and a "Virginia" to lie about her age and say she was 17 to Epstein. The testimony also confirms that Ms. Roberts, a friend of Epstein, invited Carolyn to Epstein's house to give him a massage for which she would be paid.
DOJ-OGR-00018741.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn) filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony details how Ms. Roberts (Virginia Roberts Giuffre) recruited Carolyn, instructed her to dress 'provocatively' or 'sexy,' and drove her to Palm Beach to meet Jeffrey Epstein for the purpose of making money. Carolyn testifies that Roberts participated in the massage to make her feel comfortable and gave instructions about removing clothing while inside the massage room.
DOJ-OGR-00018739.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 attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding statements she made to the FBI in August 2007. The questioning focuses on whether 'Ms. Roberts' (Virginia) told Carolyn she could make $300 by massaging a man (Epstein) in Palm Beach; Carolyn denies being told this initially, stating she was told only upon arriving at Mr. Epstein's house.
DOJ-OGR-00018737.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. A witness named Carolyn is being cross-examined by Mr. Pagliuca regarding a 2007 statement she gave to the FBI. The attorney reads a portion of a report stating Virginia approached Carolyn at a party to offer her $300; Carolyn corrects the record, stating the FBI got it wrong and the interaction actually occurred at Virginia's house, not a party.
DOJ-OGR-00018736.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial given the case number and attorneys) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The witness denies using drugs or alcohol and denies an allegation that Virginia Roberts approached her at a party to offer her $300. The witness confirms she was interviewed by the FBI in 2007 regarding Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00018732.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the questioning of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Carolyn confirms her previous testimony from December 2009, stating she would call Mr. Epstein's residence to arrange to give him a massage for payment. She specifies that she would often speak with household staff, identified as 'Sarah or Maxwell' or possibly a cook, to make these arrangements.
DOJ-OGR-00018730.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) detailing a sidebar conference during the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues that reading only two lines of a prior statement removes necessary context. The Court rules that the witness can read the 'whole thing,' and prosecutor Ms. Comey agrees, coordinating specific line numbers (136, line 23 through line 6) with the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00018729.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details a courtroom exchange where an attorney, Ms. Comey, attempts to introduce evidence, leading to confusion and a formal objection from the opposing counsel, Mr. Pagliuca, who then requests to approach the bench.
DOJ-OGR-00018726.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. She testifies that in 2007, the FBI interviewed her specifically about Jeffrey Epstein, not Ghislaine Maxwell. She discusses her employment as a stripper and escort after turning 18 and details a 2009 lawsuit she filed against Epstein and Sarah Kellen for emotional damage and complicity.
DOJ-OGR-00018714.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. Carolyn testifies that she gave her address to someone named Maxwell so that Jeffrey Epstein could send her gifts, which included lingerie from Victoria's Secret, a massage book, and concert tickets. She also confirms that other females, including a person named Virginia, were present in the room when she was massaging Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00018704.jpg
This document is a page of a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. Carolyn testifies that either Maxwell or Sarah would schedule her appointments and arrange for a car to take her to Jeffrey Epstein's house. She states that her driver, Shawn, waited outside and that she saw Mr. Epstein outside the house on at least one occasion when she was with Shawn.
DOJ-OGR-00018701.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn by Ms. Comey. The testimony covers the identification of Carolyn's mother (Dorothy) and describes phone calls from Ghislaine Maxwell to schedule appointments, during which Maxwell would mention she and Jeffrey Epstein were 'flying in' from out of town.
DOJ-OGR-00018698.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn, who identifies a photograph of herself (Government Exhibit 104) taken when she was 14 years old, confirming it depicts how she looked when she visited Jeffrey Epstein's house. The court admits the photograph under seal to protect the witness's anonymity.
DOJ-OGR-00018688.jpg
This page is a transcript from the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Carolyn testifies about meeting a neighbor named Shawn in West Palm Beach and dating him when she was 13 and he was 17. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) introduces Government Exhibit 20 containing Shawn's full name, which is admitted under seal to protect his identity.
DOJ-OGR-00018682.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe, Mr. Pagliuca). The conversation focuses on scheduling the next witness, whose testimony is expected to extend past the lunch break, and the potential need to call a witness out of order. The judge agrees to the proposed flexibility before preparing to bring the jury into the courtroom.
DOJ-OGR-00016872.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). It records the conclusion of testimony by a witness named Ms. Healy, the dismissal of the jury for lunch, and a subsequent procedural discussion regarding the release of AUSA Alex Rossmiller from a defense subpoena.
DOJ-OGR-00016858.jpg
This document is a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Dubin, filed on August 10, 2022. An attorney's question about conversations between Dr. Dubin and Ghislaine Maxwell regarding Jeffrey Epstein is successfully objected to by Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning then shifts to Dr. Dubin's memory, with the witness admitting it is 'very hard to remember anything far back'.
DOJ-OGR-00016855.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of Dr. Dubin. The questioning focuses on Dubin's personal life in the 1990s (birth of a child in 1997) and pivots to her observations of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca raises objections regarding hearsay and vague time frames, which the Court partially sustains, leading the questioner to narrow the focus to the period between 1994 and 2000.
DOJ-OGR-00016234.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Brown. Prosecutor Rohrbach introduces Government Exhibit 22, identified as an image from the DMV database, which the Court admits under seal to protect the witness's identity. The proceedings also reference a Defense Exhibit LV3A located in the jurors' binders.
DOJ-OGR-00016233.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of Supervisory Investigator Brown by an attorney, Mr. Rohrbach. The court admits Government Exhibit 21 under seal, and Brown then identifies Government Exhibit 22 as a DMV image capture of the same person from Exhibit 21, explaining that the record is stored in a photosystem database.
DOJ-OGR-00016230.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It records the swearing-in and initial direct examination of a government witness named William Brown. Brown identifies himself as an employee of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, Division of Field Investigations.
DOJ-OGR-00016229.jpg
This document is page 13 of a court transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It records a dispute between prosecutor Ms. Moe and defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding Government Exhibit 52G; the defense successfully objects to the prosecution directing jurors specifically to entries labeled 'massage, Florida.' The court also admits Government Exhibit 1009 as a public stipulation.
DOJ-OGR-00016224.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal discussion about evidence. The prosecution seeks to introduce rebuttal evidence to clarify that a person named 'Jane' listed in a pilot's (Mr. Rodgers) log from flights in the 1990s is not the same 'Jane' the defense has been referring to. The judge ('THE COURT') overrules an objection from Mr. Pagliuca and allows the evidence, stating it is relevant to counter the defense's suggestions to pilot witnesses.
Cross-examination duration
Estimating cross-examination will take an hour to an hour and a half.
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.
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.
Cross-examination regarding Craven article
Discussion about the definition and understanding of 'sexual grooming of children' based on a 2006 article.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cross-examination regarding Government Exhibit 6
Discussion regarding a study of 322 articles, specifically regarding delayed reporting of psychological issues by males versus females.
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 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.
Admissibility of Interrogatory Questions
Discussion regarding the admission of questions 16 and 17 from a prior document concerning Carolyn's visits to Epstein's home and payments received.
Cross-examination regarding substance abuse
Attorney questions witness about drug use in 2002-2003 and at age 13.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding signature on Exhibit C8.
Adherence to household manual
Questioning regarding whether Alessi followed a specific manual and knowledge of 'the countess'.
Direct Examination / Exhibit Admission
Mr. Pagliuca resumes direct examination of Dr. Dubin and offers Exhibit 662-RR into evidence.
Witness Testimony vs Stipulation
Discussion regarding whether to use a live witness or a stipulation for a 302 report.
Discrepancies in Epstein Victim Compensation Fund submission
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about the start date of alleged abuse (May 1, 2001) and additional claims of specific sexual acts in her submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund, which she denies making.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding observations of inappropriate conduct between Epstein and teenage females.
Scope of Cross-Examination
Argument regarding the admissibility of questions about memory, confabulation, and alcohol effects during cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio.
Scheduling and Privilege Waiver
Discussion regarding when to address the waiver theory concerning 'Jane', scheduling for Friday vs Monday, and the timeline for the government to rest its case.
Admissibility and Procedural Status
Discussion regarding not admitting a specific item and determining where questioning left off (around '33') to be handled at sidebar.
Relevance of Dr. Rocchio's testimony
Discussion regarding 'grooming the environment,' perpetrator deception, and hindsight bias effect.
Defense strategy and calling attorneys as witnesses
Pagliuca argues it is inappropriate to discuss defense strategy; Court rules he cannot call an attorney as a witness without briefing.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity