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-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.
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