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-00013603.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a proceeding where several government exhibits are admitted into evidence. The judge gives a limiting instruction to the jury, stating the exhibits should only be used to consider a potential link between a "Ms. Maxwell" and other information, not for the truth of the matter asserted. At the request of Ms. Moe and with no objection from Mr. Pagliuca, the court agrees to seal the exhibits to protect witness identities.
DOJ-OGR-00013596.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The proceedings involve discussions between the Judge and attorneys (Ms. Moe, Ms. Menninger, Mr. Pagliuca) regarding limiting instructions for a witness named Ms. Farmer, modeled after a previous witness named Kate. Additionally, attorney Mr. Pagliuca discloses a new witness, William Brown, a DMV record custodian relevant to identity verification.
DOJ-OGR-00013595.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Pagliuca, and Ms. Moe regarding the procedural handling of an exhibit numbered '52'. The attorneys raise concerns about the exhibit's partial admission, relevance, and the jury's ability to evaluate its authenticity and weight without access to the full physical object.
DOJ-OGR-00013594.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the judge. Mr. Pagliuca clarifies his objection concerning an exhibit, explaining that while he agrees to photocopies being shown to the jury as requested by the government, he insists the complete, original exhibit be entered into the official record for any future appellate proceedings. The core issue is the distinction between the evidence presented to the jury and the evidence preserved for the formal court record.
DOJ-OGR-00013593.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a procedural discussion between the judge (THE COURT) and two counsels, Ms. Moe and Mr. Pagliuca, regarding the correct method for offering 'Government Exhibit 52' and its excerpts into evidence. The counsels clarify whether the entire document should be offered foundationally with excerpts for the jury, ultimately agreeing on the process.
DOJ-OGR-00013559.jpg
A transcript page from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge discusses a potential stipulation regarding testimony from Mr. Glassman about advice he gave to 'Jane' concerning cooperation with the government, aiming to avoid attorney-client privilege issues. The court also addresses administrative matters regarding letters submitted the previous night.
DOJ-OGR-00013558.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022. The judge and attorneys for the government and defense discuss the scheduling of future trial events, such as the charge conference and closing arguments, which depends on when the defense will rest its case. A defense attorney, Ms. Comey, also brings up an unresolved issue regarding a subpoena issued to a Mr. Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00013556.jpg
This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 757, filed 2022-08-10). The discussion primarily revolves around the nature of closing arguments, the proper method for presenting evidence (specifically regarding a witness's personal experience), and an 'Exhibit 52 issue.' The Court, Ms. Moe, Mr. Pagliuca (representing the defense), and Ms. Comey participate in the dialogue, clarifying procedural matters related to the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00013554.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Moe and Mr. Pagliuca, and the presiding judge about the government's plan to present documents to the jury without a testifying witness. The Court expresses concerns about the method, and Mr. Pagliuca formally objects to the proposed process.
DOJ-OGR-00013550.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a trial, dated August 10, 2022. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, is arguing to the judge that the prosecution should not be allowed to use a summary witness, such as an FBI agent, to compare pieces of evidence that have already been admitted. He contends that this constitutes summation, not testimony, and is essentially a premature closing argument, which is procedurally improper.
DOJ-OGR-00013540.jpg
This document is an index of examination from a legal case (1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It lists the direct, cross, and redirect examinations of witnesses Janine Gill Velez, Shawn, Nicole Hesse, and David Rodgers by various attorneys, providing the corresponding page numbers in the full transcript. The document also includes a list of government exhibits that were received into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00013407.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'), Defense Attorney Pagliuca, and Prosecutor Comey regarding the admissibility of evidence connected to the testimony of Mr. Alessi and an anticipated witness. The discussion concludes with the court taking a recess.
DOJ-OGR-00013387.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated August 10, 2022. During the direct examination of a witness named Rodgers, attorney Mr. Pagliuca objects to a line of questioning, arguing that moving to a smaller apartment does not prove a lack of money. The Court overrules the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00013377.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mrs. Hesse. The questioning focuses on messages written for Mr. Epstein, establishing that Mrs. Hesse can only vouch for the accuracy of messages she personally wrote and that she took these messages at his residence only when he was absent.
DOJ-OGR-00013376.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness named Hesse by prosecutor Mr. Pagliuca regarding specific evidentiary exhibits (1J, 1K, and 1M). These exhibits are identified as message pads containing messages directed to 'Mr. JE,' 'Jeffrey,' and 'Sarah.'
DOJ-OGR-00013375.jpg
This document is page 97 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. A witness named Hesse is being cross-examined regarding her precision in taking phone messages compared to other messages found on an exhibit labeled '1C'. The questioning highlights specific messages on the exhibit directed to 'Mr. Epstein' and 'Sarah'.
DOJ-OGR-00013373.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness, Ms. Hesse, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. Ms. Hesse testifies that she knew women came to a residence to give massages, even when Maxwell was absent, and that she took messages for them. She also confirms knowing about Maxwell's home in New York but denies any knowledge of a residence in Miami.
DOJ-OGR-00013370.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Ms. Hesse by attorney Mr. Pagliuca. Hesse testifies that she worked part-time for Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein starting roughly in September 2003 and ending around 2004. The testimony confirms that Hesse was interviewed by Maxwell and subsequently hired by Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00013368.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It features the direct examination of a witness named Mrs. Hesse by Ms. Moe. The testimony concerns a message left by a person named Carolyn on March 11, 2003, and involves the introduction of Government Exhibit 3E after a correction from Exhibit 4B.
DOJ-OGR-00013367.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Witness Mrs. Carolyn Hesse is under direct examination by Ms. Moe regarding 'Government Exhibit 2T.' The testimony focuses on identifying a message on the upper right-hand corner of the exhibit that is addressed 'for Mr. Epstein.'
DOJ-OGR-00013364.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, focusing on a discussion about 'Government Exhibit 1B'. Ms. Moe requests the jury to access the exhibit and clarifies its location in binders, then proceeds to question Mrs. Hesse about it. A key point is Ms. Moe's caution about not reading names aloud from the exhibit, suggesting sensitive information.
DOJ-OGR-00013363.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a portion of a trial. Attorney Ms. Moe continues her direct examination of witness Mrs. Hesse. During this segment, the court overrules an objection from Mr. Pagliuca and admits Government Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 into evidence under seal to protect the privacy of witnesses and parties.
DOJ-OGR-00013360.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues against the admissibility of certain phone records/notes (specifically mentioning one labeled 'JE Natasha'), claiming they lack reliability, dates, and signatures, and do not meet the business record exception. Prosecutor Ms. Moe counters that the records are valid to show who called 'the house' and when, noting that witnesses have corroborated names found in these records.
DOJ-OGR-00013359.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from a direct examination of a witness named Hesse. The transcript captures a legal discussion between an attorney (Mr. Pagliuca) and the judge (The Court) about the admissibility of hearsay evidence, specifically statements contained within business records like police reports. The core issue is that such statements are generally not admissible to prove their content is true unless a specific legal foundation, like business trustworthiness, is established.
DOJ-OGR-00013358.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring a legal argument regarding the admissibility of evidence under Rule 803.6 (Business Records). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues that record-keeping practices were inconsistent after Mr. Alessi left in 2002, contradicting testimony by Alessi and Ms. Hesse. The discussion specifically concerns the admissibility of Western Union money transfer records.
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