MR. PAGLIUCA
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
The Court
|
Interlocutors |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Alessi
|
Witness cross examiner |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Asking a question about |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Defendant (Maxwell)
|
Client |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Court Recess pending verdict | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding Exhibit 3505-005 | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal sidebar/conference regarding a response to a jury question concerning witness Carolyn and a... | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell where she is questioned about computer files and a contact list. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell regarding lists of names associated with Jeffrey Epstein. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding media reports of Epstein's flight logs | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of Mrs. Hesse | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Shawn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Nicole Hesse | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Carolyn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 5 into evidence. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross Examination of Lisa Rocchio by Mr. Pagliuca | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Redirect examination of witness Carolyn. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conclusion of Shawn's testimony and calling of Nicole Hesse to the stand. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | 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 recess taken after discussion between counsel and judge. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of Exhibit 52 (a book) to the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding sexualized massages and relationship timeline. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Review of evidentiary exhibits (1J, 1K, 1M) during trial testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct Examination of Carolyn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of Juan Patricio Alessi | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Afternoon Court Session during Jury Deliberations | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the 'business record exception' and admissibility of phone logs/notes. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Mr. Pagliuca summarizes testimony from four witnesses (Carolyn, Jane, Kate, Mr. Alessi) regarding... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Testimony | A witness is being questioned about Jeffrey Epstein's use of masseuses. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00016220.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It records a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding 'Exhibit 52' (identified as a book). The defense argues against providing the full book to the jury due to limited cross-examination and relevance, while the prosecution argues the physical object is necessary for the jury to evaluate its authenticity.
DOJ-OGR-00016219.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a procedural discussion between the Judge, Ms. Moe, and Mr. Pagliuca regarding the admission of 'Exhibit 52.' The defense (Pagliuca) argues that only photocopies of specific pages, not the entire exhibit, were intended for the jury, while the full exhibit should be preserved for appellate purposes.
DOJ-OGR-00016218.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Ms. Moe, and Mr. Pagliuca. The main topic is the clarification of how Government Exhibit 52 and its subparts are to be offered into evidence, ensuring all parties agree on the process involving a stipulation for accuracy.
DOJ-OGR-00016167.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It features a discussion between the Court and attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding opening statements. The Judge overrules an objection but questions the defense's basis for suggesting attorneys told witnesses what to say. Mr. Pagliuca argues that in 2008, a witness named Carolyn provided detailed interrogatories, depositions, and a complaint that did not include Ms. Maxwell, implying her later inclusion may have been influenced.
DOJ-OGR-00016165.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues regarding the admissibility of communications between witnesses' lawyers (specifically mentioning Mr. Scarola) and the government, citing an email where Scarola suggested ten interview topics for a witness named Carolyn. The discussion centers on whether these communications and proffers are privileged or if they can be used as evidence regarding the 'cultivating of stories'.
DOJ-OGR-00019143.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Rohrbach and Pagliuca discuss procedural matters with the Judge regarding the redaction and docketing of a letter and an 'Exhibit A'. The proceedings appear to be paused briefly while waiting for missing jurors to arrive.
DOJ-OGR-00019141.jpg
This is a transcript of a court proceeding from August 10, 2022, where the judge and attorneys discuss scheduling for the remainder of a trial. The main topic is whether to hold a charge conference on Thursday night, which depends on if the defense will rest its case before Friday. A defense attorney also brings up an unresolved issue regarding a subpoena served to an individual named Mr. Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00019139.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Judge rules that the government cannot use a witness with no personal experience to present a 'streamlined version of the closing argument,' distinguishing this from a Rule 1006 data summary. The parties also discuss the timing of a ruling on 'Exhibit 52' relative to when the government rests its case.
DOJ-OGR-00019137.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between the judge, a government attorney (Ms. Moe), and another attorney (Mr. Pagliuca). The attorneys and the judge debate the proper way to present documentary evidence to the jury, specifically whether it can be done without a witness on the stand. Mr. Pagliuca objects to the government's proposed method, and the judge expresses concern that it would be improper.
DOJ-OGR-00019130.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures a legal debate regarding witness testimony: first, confirming a female witness will testify only to facts and not offer opinions on 'grooming' (Rule 702), and second, a defense objection by Mr. Pagliuca regarding the government's use of Mr. Buscemi as a 'summary witness' under Rule 1006. The defense argues Buscemi should not analyze complex business or phone records.
DOJ-OGR-00019126.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge and counsel without the jury present. The attorneys address several procedural matters, including agreements to release a witness named Carolyn from recall, to permit Kimberly Meder to be present in the courtroom, and to allow the defense time to review a redacted video of a Palm Beach residence before its formal submission as evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00019124.jpg
This document is the final page (Index of Examination) of a court transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the testimony of witnesses Janine Gill Velez, Shawn, Nicole Hesse, and David Rodgers, along with the attorneys conducting the examinations (Rohrbach, Sternheim, Comey, Pagliuca, Moe, Everdell). It also logs the receipt of Government Exhibits 823, 823-R, 105, 1, 2, 3, 662, and 662-R.
DOJ-OGR-00019122.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 records a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach), and the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) regarding a briefing schedule that needs to be resolved before the government rests its case. The Judge denies a request for simultaneous briefing and sets a deadline of 7:00 PM for the government and 10:00 PM for the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00017098.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, argues for a mistrial. He contends that the government, during its closing argument, improperly used admitted evidence (Exhibit 52, pages from a book) to argue the truth of its contents, specifically to infer that Ms. Maxwell knew individuals were minors. Mr. Pagliuca asserts this violates the court's limiting instruction and, if a mistrial is not granted, asks the court to re-instruct the jury on the evidence's limited purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00016995.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal discussion between a judge and several attorneys (Sternheim, Pagliuca, Rohrbach). The main topic is the formulation of jury instructions and closing arguments, with Mr. Rohrbach arguing for the inclusion of a 'conscious avoidance theory' on behalf of the government. The judge acknowledges the argument as a 'fair point' and considers giving the instruction, while also mentioning a theory related to flight records.
DOJ-OGR-00016993.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues against the 'conscious avoidance' theory, stating that instructions to lie about age came from Virginia, not Ms. Maxwell. Prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach counters by citing testimony from Mr. Alessi regarding Maxwell recruiting at legitimate hotels, suggesting she may have confused underage girls with adults.
DOJ-OGR-00016991.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, USA v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues against the concept of 'conscious avoidance,' stating that the core issue is a factual dispute regarding the ages of alleged victims (specifically Jane and Kate) and whether the defense had any interaction with another individual named Carolyn. The defense cites testimony from Mr. Alessi stating he only saw two underage-looking individuals at Epstein's house, contrary to the inference of 'hundreds' of underage women.
DOJ-OGR-00016990.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between the judge and attorneys. The judge notes the defense's strategy of questioning witnesses about victims' ages to challenge whether the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, had knowledge of their ages. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, begins to raise a related evidentiary issue concerning testimony about multiple females at Palm Beach.
DOJ-OGR-00016989.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In the transcript, a lawyer named Mr. Pagliuca summarizes testimony for the judge, stating that three witnesses—Carolyn, Jane, and Kate—all testified that they had told Ms. Maxwell their age. He also recounts the testimony of another witness, Mr. Alessi, who said he saw Ms. Roberts and Jane at a house and believed them to be under 18, which is relevant to the issue of the defendant's knowledge of the witnesses' ages.
DOJ-OGR-00016925.jpg
This document is an index of examinations from a legal transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on August 10, 2022. It lists four witnesses—Jason Richards, Amanda Young, Eva Adnersson Dubin, and Michelle Healy—and details which attorneys conducted their direct, cross, and redirect examinations, along with the corresponding page numbers in the full transcript.
DOJ-OGR-00016857.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Dubin. The questioning, conducted by Ms. Moe, focuses on the witness's understanding of the relationship between Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein during the 1990s (specifically 1994-2000), asking about Maxwell's role in managing Epstein's personal life and whether they had an open relationship. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca repeatedly objects to the questions based on lack of foundation.
DOJ-OGR-00016856.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, likely named Dubin. The witness is questioned about their observations of the relationship between Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, stating that they lived in the same house but finding the term 'relationship' hard to define. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, repeatedly objects to the questioning, with the court overruling one objection and sustaining another.
DOJ-OGR-00016853.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Eva Dubin, by an attorney named Ms. Moe. After confirming the witness's name, Ms. Moe asks if she knows every person Jeffrey Epstein ever met, to which Dr. Dubin replies, "Absolutely not."
DOJ-OGR-00016850.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Dubin, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. Dr. Dubin identifies Celina Midelfart as a former girlfriend of Jeffrey Epstein. The questioning then shifts to specific entries in an unredacted document, referencing a flight in August 1997 and an entry from May 3, 1998.
DOJ-OGR-00016848.jpg
This document is page 119 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. During direct examination by Mr. Pagliuca, witness Dr. Dubin reviews a redacted flight log (Exhibit 662) containing the name 'Eva'. Dr. Dubin also identifies 'Sophie Biddle' from the remarks section, stating that she worked for 'Jeffrey' as a massage therapist.
Cross-examination regarding Craven article
Discussion about the definition and understanding of 'sexual grooming of children' based on a 2006 article.
Unknown
The Court mentions giving a note to Mr. Pagliuca.
Cross-examination duration
Estimating cross-examination will take an hour to an hour and a half.
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 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.
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.
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.
Cross-examination regarding Government Exhibit 6
Discussion regarding a study of 322 articles, specifically regarding delayed reporting of psychological issues by males versus females.
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.
Application to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund
Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines the witness, Carolyn, about the date she submitted her application to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund, using Exhibit C6 to establish the date as October 14, 2020. He also distinguishes this submission from her lawsuits against Epstein and Kellen.
Objection to evidence
Mr. Pagliuca objects on hearsay grounds to records for which the witness does not have personal knowledge, specifically beyond the signature she took.
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.
Admissibility of questions 16 and 17
Mr. Pagliuca discusses specific questions from a document with the Court, focusing on questions about visits to Mr. Epstein's home and financial matters. The Court sustains an objection but indicates a willingness to allow the questions.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Acknowledgment of ruling
Mr. Pagliuca thanks the judge after the ruling is made.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity