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 | Court proceeding | A court hearing to discuss the schedule for jury deliberations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Mr. Alessi by attorney Mr. Pagliuca, with an objection from Ms. Come... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Deposition | A witness is questioned under oath about their knowledge of and contributions to a specific docum... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Testimony | An unidentified witness is questioned about the existence of a hard copy document containing phon... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Testimony / deposition | A colloquy where an unnamed defendant was questioned about Jeffrey Epstein's activities. The defe... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal hearing regarding evidentiary disputes over a book/list. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Daubert hearing | A prior hearing mentioned in the transcript where literature and the scope of examination were di... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Court testimony / cross-examination | Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines Mr. Alessi about his prior sworn testimony regarding his supervisors,... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | A discussion took place between Mr. Pagliuca and the Court regarding a juror's scheduling conflic... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Carolyn regarding a prior deposition. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Witness testimony | Special Agent Jason Richards is called as a witness, sworn in, and begins his direct examination ... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. | Court | View |
| N/A | Witness examination | Direct, cross, and redirect examination of witness Jason Richards. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Witness examination | Direct and cross-examination of witness Eva Adnersson Dubin. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Testimony / deposition | G. Maxwell is questioned about her work for Jeffrey, providing contact information, and her knowl... | Court or legal proceeding | View |
| N/A | Hearing | Mr. Pagliuca has a hearing in Colorado. | Colorado | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Ms. Drescher is questioned about her observations of Virginia at Mr. Epstein's home. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The court proceeding documented in the transcript, discussing jury deliberation schedules. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of witness NICOLE HESSE by Mr. Pagliuca. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of witness SHAWN by Mr. Pagliuca. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Cross-examination | Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines the witness, Carolyn, about her submission to the Epstein Victim Comp... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Deposition/legal proceeding | Questioning of Ms. Maxwell regarding her responsibility for a journal in 2004-2005. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Recess | A break was taken during the proceeding from 4:39 to 4:54. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Carolyn during trial proceedings. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal examination | Cross-examination of Carolyn by Mr. Pagliuca. | Southern District | View |
DOJ-OGR-00013242.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion during a court proceeding. It involves Mr. Pagliuca, The Court, and a witness during a cross-examination of 'Carolyn', with references to Mr. Epstein, page numbers, and objections regarding the presentation of evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00013241.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The witness denies using cocaine at Mr. Epstein's house. The proceedings are interrupted by procedural matters, including an attorney's objection and the judge's instruction to the witness, who also questions the relevance of a statement about Mr. Epstein telling her not to use drugs.
DOJ-OGR-00013239.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of a cross-examination where an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions a witness named Carolyn about a deposition document dated October 21, 2009. The witness denies ever having seen the document and also states that she has never taken a hallucinogenic.
DOJ-OGR-00013238.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness about inconsistencies with prior testimony from 2009 and asks if she ingested 'angel trumpets' while traveling to Jeffrey Epstein's house. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) objects to the impeachment attempt, and the Judge sustains it, ruling the testimony is 'not inconsistent.'
DOJ-OGR-00013235.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Carolyn's past substance use, including her use of Xanax, drinking and smoking marijuana at age 13, and using benzodiazepines frequently between 2002 and 2003.
DOJ-OGR-00013234.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Carolyn's history of substance abuse, specifically asking if she abused alcohol and drugs around 2002-2003 at the age of 13, to which she conditionally agrees if 'smoking pot' is considered abusing drugs.
DOJ-OGR-00013233.jpg
This document is page 220 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). It depicts the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca, who attempts to introduce a prior deposition (Exhibit 3505-43) to refresh the witness's memory, while prosecutor Ms. Comey objects.
DOJ-OGR-00013232.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. The judge and attorneys briefly discuss the arrival of a witness before the judge addresses the jury to apologize for a delay and outline the court's schedule for the next several weeks, which includes days off due to a scheduling conflict and the Christmas holiday.
DOJ-OGR-00013231.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues that a witness named Carolyn showed inconsistency by amending a prior answer to state she was 'transported via private car provided by Jeffrey Epstein,' which the judge allows into evidence. The page concludes with Ms. Sternheim requesting a recess and prosecutor Ms. Comey questioning the length of the cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00013228.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues for the inclusion of specific interrogatory questions (16 and 17) regarding how the witness came to be at Jeffrey Epstein's home and whether she received any money or things of value. The Court sustains an objection regarding 'compound' questions but indicates an inclination to allow question 16.
DOJ-OGR-00013227.jpg
This court transcript page from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, attempts to introduce evidence (paragraphs 207 and 208) concerning Sarah Kellen, arguing it constitutes 'impeachment by omission' because Ms. Maxwell's name is absent. The Court sustains the objection, ruling the evidence inadmissible because, unlike previously discussed documents, it does not reference 'unnamed individual employees and assistants'.
DOJ-OGR-00013223.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) covering the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The text details a legal argument between prosecutor Ms. Comey and defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding the admissibility of questions about specific paragraphs (39, 51, 57) of a complaint. Ms. Comey explicitly describes an incident where Jeffrey Epstein brought another female into a room and penetrated the victim twice.
DOJ-OGR-00013221.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, documents a legal debate between Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca regarding the testimony of a witness named Carolyn. Ms. Comey argues that the witness did not specify a time frame for an alleged act, while Mr. Pagliuca contends that her testimony about the frequency of the act (up to four times a week) contradicts a complaint that alleges it happened twice a month. The judge intervenes to manage the procedural aspects of their arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00013220.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, in front of a judge. The discussion focuses on whether omissions in a legal complaint regarding specific sex acts are inconsistent with a witness's testimony. The judge concludes that the testified detail is significant and sustains an objection related to the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00013219.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving the cross-examination related to a witness named Carolyn. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Court that there are inconsistencies in the testimony regarding incidents in July 2002, specifically noting that the allegations involve 'fondling of breasts and buttocks' rather than 'sexual intrusion or penetration.' The Judge clarifies the record regarding paragraph references (33 vs 39) before turning to Ms. Comey (prosecution) for a response.
DOJ-OGR-00013217.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, discussing inconsistencies in dates provided in testimony versus an indictment. Mr. Pagliuca and The Court discuss a witness's (likely Carolyn) direct testimony and cross-examination regarding the dates of alleged incidents, specifically contrasting July 2002, 2001, and 2002-2003/2004. The discussion focuses on impeachment based on these chronological discrepancies in the alleged events.
DOJ-OGR-00013215.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The conversation centers on the consistency of paragraph 206 of an exhibit, which describes allegations against Epstein, with prior testimony. The Court ultimately rules that the paragraph is not inconsistent and sustains an objection.
DOJ-OGR-00013212.jpg
This document is page 199 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal argument between the Judge ('The Court') and attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey regarding the legal theory of 'omission' and whether prior statements lacking certain facts constitute an inconsistency relevant to the jury. Ms. Comey argues that omission is only relevant if the omitted facts would reasonably have been expected in the original statement.
DOJ-OGR-00013211.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Mr. Pagliuca argues that a legal complaint is inconsistent due to factual omissions, specifically citing that paragraph 8 fails to mention the witness's testimony of being subjected to penetration and intercourse by Epstein. The judge acknowledges this "omission theory" and states an intention to hear from a Ms. Comey on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00013209.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022, involving Mr. Pagliuca, Ms. Comey, and The Court. The discussion centers on an objection regarding a document's consistency with witness testimony and the potential admission of the document or its factual paragraphs. A key point of inquiry was whether Ms. Maxwell is mentioned in the complaint, to which the answer was confirmed as no, leading to a plan to identify inconsistencies with testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00013206.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding her sworn answers to interrogatories from 2009. The witness repeatedly states she is confused, and her attorney, Ms. Comey, successfully objects to the line of questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00013204.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, US v. Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding an alleged 6.5-hour meeting with Dr. Richard Hall on October 21, 2009. The attorney presses the witness on whether she told Dr. Hall she began seeing Jeffrey Epstein in 2002, though the witness claims no recollection of the meeting.
DOJ-OGR-00013203.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 paragraphs 206 and 207 of a complaint, with specific mentions of Ghislaine Maxwell and Sarah Kellen. The witness denies that paragraph 207, which mentions Sarah Kellen, was about engaging her in prostitution.
DOJ-OGR-00013201.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 details the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca, confirming a specific incident where Jeffrey Epstein masturbated in her presence and paid her $300. The testimony also references a legal complaint filed against Epstein in federal court in 2009.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Clarification on preclusion of witness testimony
Mr. Pagliuca asks the Court to confirm that testimony from Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards is being precluded, which the Court affirms. This allows the witnesses to be released.
Redirect Examination
Mr. Pagliuca questions Special Agent Richards about the accuracy of notes taken during interviews, confirming they are written with the possibility of future testimony under oath in mind.
Compensation fund payment and prior claims
Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines the witness, Carolyn, about a $2,804,000 compensation payment she received, a $446,000 deduction related to prior claims against Mr. Epstein and Ms. Kellen, and the consequences of submitting false information to the fund.
Confirmation of past events and prior legal complaints
Questioning regarding paragraph 33 of a 2009 complaint and the details of a sexual encounter with Epstein.
Discussion of paragraph 206 of an exhibit
A dialogue between Mr. Pagliuca and the Court regarding the consistency of paragraph 206 with testimony. The Court finds the paragraph is not inconsistent and sustains an objection.
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.
Admissibility of evidence paragraphs
Argument regarding whether specific paragraphs (12 and 206) are factually inconsistent with testimony.
Prior deposition testimony regarding Jane, Jeffrey Epstei...
Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about his previous deposition answer regarding the year Jane met Jeffrey Epstein and Glen Maxwell. Alessi clarifies his answer, stating he confused two different girls he met.
Meetings with the government and Epstein Victim Compensat...
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about meetings she attended with Mr. Scarola and the government in 2020, and whether these meetings coincided with her submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. The witness denies the timing and repeatedly states she cannot recall the meetings.
Objection to Exhibits
Objection to exhibits 2C through 2W because they were not written by Mr. Alessi or his wife and are not authenticated.
Meetings with the government and Epstein Victim Compensat...
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about meetings she attended with Mr. Scarola and the government in 2020, and whether these meetings coincided with her submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. The witness denies the timing and repeatedly states she cannot recall the meetings.
Admissibility of cross-examination question
Discussion regarding a question about 'hindsight bias phenomena' and whether it is within the scope of direct examination.
Prior deposition testimony regarding Jane, Jeffrey Epstei...
Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about his previous deposition answer regarding the year Jane met Jeffrey Epstein and Glen Maxwell. Alessi clarifies his answer, stating he confused two different girls he met.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity