MR. PAGLIUCA
PersonRelationship Network
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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-00016846.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Dubin. An attorney questions Dr. Dubin about whether he knows a person identified in exhibit GX-12, using the alias "Jane" to protect the person's identity. Dr. Dubin states that he does not recall ever meeting this individual.
DOJ-OGR-00016845.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness (Mrs. Dubin) by Mr. Pagliuca regarding a flight taken on November 21, 1995, from Teterboro, NJ to Palm Beach with Glen Dubin, their child, and a nanny. The defense attorney, Ms. Moe, objects to lines of questioning, and the witness states she does not recall the specific Thanksgiving trip mentioned.
DOJ-OGR-00016843.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Dubin. The testimony focuses on confirming that Mr. Epstein dated a woman named Frances Jardine in 1994 and discusses a specific flight record indicating Dubin, Epstein, and Jardine flew to Washington D.C. (DCA) and returned the same day. The witness recalls Frances but claims not to recall the specific trip.
DOJ-OGR-00016842.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, showing attorney Mr. Pagliuca questioning witness Dr. Dubin. The questioning centers on a document detailing a flight from 1994, which Dr. Dubin claims not to remember. Dr. Dubin identifies the initials 'JE' on the document as likely referring to Jeffrey Epstein and acknowledges the name Eva Andersson is also listed.
DOJ-OGR-00016840.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the resumption of the direct examination of witness Dr. Dubin by attorney Mr. Pagliuca after the jury is brought in. During this segment, Exhibit 662-RR (identified as a redacted version of Exhibit 662) is offered by the defense and admitted into evidence without objection from the government (Ms. Moe).
DOJ-OGR-00016839.jpg
This is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between two attorneys, Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey, and the judge. They are arranging the submission of a new, less-redacted version of flight logs (Exhibit 662-R), agreeing to mark it as '662-RR' for clarity, which will replace a previously offered version.
DOJ-OGR-00016838.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal proceeding on August 10, 2022. In the transcript, an attorney, Ms. Moe, informs the court that Mr. Pagliuca will be offering a redacted government exhibit that both parties have already agreed upon. This is a procedural discussion about the admission of evidence during a trial or hearing.
DOJ-OGR-00016837.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), dated August 10, 2022. It details procedural discussions between the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) and the prosecution (Ms. Comey, Ms. Moe) regarding the admissibility of flight records and the submission of legal applications. The court sustains an objection based on Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 during the direct examination of a witness named Dubin.
DOJ-OGR-00016836.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and prosecutor Ms. Moe regarding the admissibility of questioning a witness (indicated as 'Dubin' in the header) about media reports concerning flight logs. Ms. Moe clarifies that the official flight records in evidence are sealed/redacted and differ from public versions. Mr. Pagliuca argues that inaccurate media reports have influenced perceptions of his client (Maxwell) and that the witness can testify to these inaccuracies.
DOJ-OGR-00016833.jpg
This page is a transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), specifically the direct examination of a witness named Dubin (likely Eva Dubin). Prosecutor Mr. Pagliuca asks the witness if they have seen media reports regarding Jeffrey Epstein's flight records and whether they believed them to be accurate. Defense attorney Ms. Moe objects twice asking for more specificity, and the Judge sustains the objection, asking Pagliuca to define the timeframe and quantity of the records being discussed.
DOJ-OGR-00016832.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 is asked to identify a person from a sealed exhibit but states he does not recognize them. The questioning then shifts to Dr. Dubin's past travel on airplanes belonging to a Mr. Epstein, referencing flight records that have been admitted into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016831.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the direct examination of Dr. Dubin (likely Eva Dubin) in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). During questioning by prosecutor Mr. Pagliuca, Dr. Dubin reviews Government Exhibit 248, a photograph she states she has never seen before. She identifies the individuals in the photo as Mr. Epstein and her oldest child (age 27).
DOJ-OGR-00016830.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Dubin. The questioning attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, has Dr. Dubin identify individuals in a photograph (Government Exhibit 241), confirming the presence of both Mr. Epstein and one of Dr. Dubin's children, who was around 20 years old at the time.
DOJ-OGR-00016829.jpg
This document is page 100 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca is conducting a direct examination of Dr. Eva Dubin. Dr. Dubin testifies that she did not observe inappropriate conduct between Jeffrey Epstein and teenage females during the period roughly between 1994 and 2004, after she stopped dating him. The court then proceeds to discuss the presentation of sealed Government Exhibit 241 (photos) to the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00016828.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal transcript, filed on August 10, 2022, pertaining to a direct examination. It captures a discussion between 'THE COURT' and 'MR. PAGLIUCA' regarding questions about an unnamed 'she' and 'her children' in relation to Mr. Epstein, specifically concerning her knowledge of him and their presence with him. The Court directs the questioning to move on after sustaining a question.
DOJ-OGR-00016827.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Pagliuca before the Judge. The discussion concerns limiting the scope of questioning for a witness (identified in the header as Dubin) regarding 'sexualized massages' and misconduct involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Mr. Pagliuca argues that the witness's lack of knowledge regarding inappropriate activity is relevant to why she continued dating 'him' (Epstein).
DOJ-OGR-00016825.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Dubin. The witness is questioned about a dating relationship with Mr. Epstein from approximately 1983 to 1991 and whether they observed any inappropriate conduct between him and teenage females. The question is immediately met with an objection from counsel, leading to a procedural discussion with the court.
DOJ-OGR-00016820.jpg
This document is a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the beginning of a direct examination where an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions a witness, Dr. Dubin. Dr. Dubin confirms her identity and provides personal information, stating she is 60 years old, lives in New York City, and has been married to Glenn Dubin for 28 years, with whom she has three children.
DOJ-OGR-00016819.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. It records the conclusion of Agent Young's testimony and the calling of the next defense witness, Dr. Eva Dubin (Eva Andersson Dubin). The transcript captures the swearing-in process and the initial spelling of her name for the record.
DOJ-OGR-00016790.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness named Richards. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions the witness about their recollection of a person named Carolyn stating she had obtained Epstein's phone number from a telephone book. The witness confirms this account is documented in a '302' report.
DOJ-OGR-00016783.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court trial held on August 10, 2022. After addressing the jury, the judge allows Mr. Pagliuca to call his next witness, Special Agent Jason Richards. Mr. Pagliuca begins the direct examination, during which Richards identifies himself as an FBI agent who investigates violations of United States laws.
DOJ-OGR-00016782.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a procedural discussion between a judge and several attorneys. The main topics are the logistics for a subpoenaed witness who has been placed 'on call' for the trial and a statement from one attorney that the defense is not expected to stipulate on an issue.
DOJ-OGR-00016781.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a conversation between a judge and several lawyers (Pagliuca, Comey, Everdell, Menninger) about witness scheduling. The discussion revolves around the absence of a scheduled witness, Ms. Dubin, a proposal to call another witness, Agent Young, and difficulties in contacting other individuals in Colorado. The judge grants the lawyers a short break to organize their witnesses before resuming the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00016724.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and attorneys Comey, Pagliuca, and Menninger. The discussion covers logistical matters, including deadlines for a decision and a legal brief set for that evening. The judge also brings up a letter received the previous day from counsel for a potential defense witness, leading to confusion among the attorneys about who received it.
DOJ-OGR-00016723.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features a procedural discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Defense attorneys (Mr. Pagliuca, Ms. Sternheim), and the Prosecution (Ms. Comey). The primary topic is whether the government intends to call a rebuttal witness; Ms. Comey indicates they are leaning against it but will decide by the next morning.
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.
Cross-examination duration
Estimating cross-examination will take an hour to an hour and a half.
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.
Unknown
The Court mentions giving a note to Mr. Pagliuca.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Direct Examination / Exhibit Admission
Mr. Pagliuca resumes direct examination of Dr. Dubin and offers Exhibit 662-RR into evidence.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity