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-00016692.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, attorneys discuss procedural matters with the judge, including a successful request for a one-hour filing extension and an announcement that the parties have reached a stipulation regarding Mr. Glassman, which avoids the need for his live testimony. The transcript concludes as the court prepares to bring in a witness and the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016659.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a legal proceeding filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a segment of a cross-examination. Ms. Pomerantz argues for the relevance of a witness's experiments on memory, distinguishing them from other evidence related to Dr. Rocchio, while Mr. Pagliuca briefly interjects. The Court ultimately rules 'Overruled' on an unspecified objection or motion.
DOJ-OGR-00016658.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a sidebar conversation between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge. Mr. Pagliuca objects to the cross-examination of expert witness Dr. Loftus focusing on a single study, arguing it's prejudicial and inconsistent with a prior ruling involving another expert, Dr. Rocchio. The discussion revolves around the proper use of studies to impeach a witness versus introducing affirmative evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00016627.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The dialogue involves the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Pagliuca, and Ms. Comey discussing procedural matters, including agreed-upon witnesses, a potential government rebuttal expert, and an affidavit by a Mr. Hamilton that the court is reviewing.
DOJ-OGR-00016625.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Mr. Pagliuca) regarding the testimony of a witness named Loftus and the admission of an FBI 302 report. The defense argues for a live witness to highlight an inconsistent statement regarding whether 'Virginia' approached 'Carolyn' to offer $300 at a party or at a house in Virginia.
DOJ-OGR-00016624.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Menninger, Comey, and Pagliuca discuss scheduling and stipulations regarding 'prior inconsistent statements' found in FBI 302 reports for witnesses identified as Carolyn, Jane, and Annie. The court focuses on resolving issues related to 'Carolyn' immediately as she is an out-of-state witness present to testify that afternoon.
DOJ-OGR-00016514.jpg
This document is page 31 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures a brief exchange between the Marshal, Mr. Pagliuca, and the Court regarding readiness for an unidentified female individual waiting outside, concluding with the Judge's order to bring in the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00016488.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The court discusses the preclusion of testimony from witnesses Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards on 401/403 grounds, allowing the defense to release them. Additionally, the court addresses a government objection to a defense exhibit regarding a 1996 sale agreement for the defendant's home at 44 Kinnerton Street in London.
DOJ-OGR-00016463.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca explains that the defense is still finalizing its witness list because the government rested its case earlier than expected. Government attorney Ms. Moe counters that the defense was warned and is obligated by a prior court order to produce materials, specifically those governed by Rule 26 related to experts and witnesses, immediately.
DOJ-OGR-00013276.jpg
This document is an index page (Page 263 of 264) from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It lists the examination of witnesses Kimberly Meder, Stephen Flatley, and Carolyn by attorneys Comey, Menninger, Pomerantz, and Pagliuca. It also tracks the receipt of Government Exhibits 304, 306, 307, 320, 321, 322, and 324 into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00013275.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, related to the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022, covering proceedings that adjourned to December 8, 2021. The Judge admonishes the legal teams regarding proper objection protocols, specifically forbidding 'speaking objections' meant to communicate with the jury or witnesses. The session concludes with both the government (Ms. Moe) and defense (Ms. Menninger) confirming they have no further briefings for the evening.
DOJ-OGR-00013272.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. The discussion involves logistics regarding witnesses identified as Jane, Matt, and Brian. The government (Ms. Moe) seeks confirmation that the defense will not recall Jane so she can be released, noting that Matt has testified and Brian will not be testifying.
DOJ-OGR-00013267.jpg
This document is a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the recross-examination of a witness, Carolyn, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, concerning $446,000 she received in 2009. The witness states she does not recall the exact dates the money was spent but used it for a house, car, and food, after which she is excused and the court adjourns until the next day.
DOJ-OGR-00013260.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 discrepancies between lawsuits she filed against Epstein and Kellen in 2008-2009 and a subsequent claim to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. Carolyn denies including Ms. Maxwell in her claim and corrects the compensation amount she received from $3.25 million or $3.9 million to $2,804,000.
DOJ-OGR-00013259.jpg
This document is a transcript of a court cross-examination where an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions a witness named Carolyn about her submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. The questioning focuses on the alleged start date of abuse by Epstein (May 1, 2001) and highlights alleged inconsistencies between this submission and two prior lawsuits. Specifically, the attorney suggests she added new claims of sexual acts, which Carolyn vehemently denies, calling the assertion a "lie."
DOJ-OGR-00013258.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 confirming the submission date of Carolyn's application to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund as October 14, 2020, using an exhibit to refresh her memory. The transcript also establishes that this fund submission is a separate matter from two lawsuits she filed against Epstein and Kellen.
DOJ-OGR-00013257.jpg
This court transcript page, dated August 10, 2022, documents the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning centers on whether Carolyn attended meetings with the government in 2020, specifically in July, alongside Mr. Scarola and other lawyers, and if these meetings coincided with a submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. Carolyn consistently responds that she cannot recall or does not recall the meetings.
DOJ-OGR-00013255.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 Mr. Pagliuca regarding her communications with the government in 2020. The questioning attempts to link her cooperation with the government to the timeline of the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund opening in June 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00013254.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 voice messages left for the witness by a Mr. Scarola in 2019 and 2020 concerning contact with the government. The opposing counsel, Ms. Comey, repeatedly objects to this line of questioning on the basis of privilege, and the court sustains her objections, preventing the witness from answering.
DOJ-OGR-00013251.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on establishing that Carolyn had never previously mentioned a 'Ms. Maxwell' in several key instances: to FBI agents in 2007, in two lawsuits involving Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen, or in a 2009 deposition. The witness is also questioned about a 2007 meeting in Florida with a 'Ms. Villaflana,' whom she claims not to recall.
DOJ-OGR-00013250.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Carolyn in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The defense attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions the witness about a 2007 interview with agents where she allegedly did not mention Maxwell. The witness responds emotionally, accusing Maxwell of sexual abuse ('fondling and touching my breasts and my buttocks'), prompting the attorney to move to strike the answer as non-responsive.
DOJ-OGR-00013246.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. During cross-examination by Mr. Pagliuca, a witness named Carolyn is confronted with prior testimony where she denied having sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein. Carolyn clarifies to the court that she answered 'no' previously because she was not a willing participant, explicitly stating, 'He had intercourse with me and I stopped it.'
DOJ-OGR-00013245.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, given the case number ending in PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. A witness named Carolyn is being cross-examined by Mr. Pagliuca regarding her 2009 testimony about using cocaine in Jeffrey Epstein's bathroom and whether Epstein explicitly told her to use drugs. The questioning then pivots to her claim of having sexual intercourse with Epstein, at which point Ms. Comey interrupts to request a definition of 'sexual'.
DOJ-OGR-00013244.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by counsel Mr. Pagliuca. The witness admits to using powder cocaine at Mr. Epstein's house on some occasions. She specifies that she would use it alone in the bathroom and cannot recall the specific dates and times.
DOJ-OGR-00013243.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural discussion between two attorneys, Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey, and the judge regarding which portion of a prior testimony a witness should read. The central point of contention is a question and answer where the witness apparently admitted to using cocaine at Mr. Epstein's house.
Unknown
The Court mentions giving a note to Mr. Pagliuca.
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.
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 duration
Estimating cross-examination will take an hour to an hour and a half.
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.
Cross-examination regarding Craven article
Discussion about the definition and understanding of 'sexual grooming of children' based on a 2006 article.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
Document presentation logistics
Discussion regarding the use of electronic screens versus paper for showing documents to refresh recollection while protecting anonymity.
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.
Request to approach bench
Your Honor, may we approach?
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding signature on Exhibit C8.
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.
Cross Examination
Questioning regarding prior statements and drug use.
Objection
Mr. Pagliuca objects to the implication that moving to a smaller apartment means someone has no money.
Witness Preclusion
Clarifying that Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards are precluded so they can be released.
New Witness Disclosure
Discussion of newly disclosed witness William Brown.
Admissibility of Exhibit 52
Discussion regarding whether the entirety of Exhibit 52 or just photocopies of specific pages should be admitted to the jury.
Admissibility of Evidence (Exhibit 52)
Discussion regarding whether Exhibit 52 will be admitted in redacted form and if the defense will stipulate that sub-exhibits are true copies.
Witness Anonymity and Courtroom Logistics
Discussion regarding how to handle document display screens to prevent public disclosure of anonymous witness identities while maintaining efficiency.
Cross-examination regarding substance abuse
Attorney questions witness about drug use in 2002-2003 and at age 13.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity