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-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.
Cross-examination duration
Estimating cross-examination will take an hour to an hour and a half.
Unknown
The Court mentions giving a note to Mr. Pagliuca.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cross-examination regarding substance abuse
Attorney questions witness about drug use in 2002-2003 and at age 13.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding signature on Exhibit C8.
Adherence to household manual
Questioning regarding whether Alessi followed a specific manual and knowledge of 'the countess'.
Direct Examination / Exhibit Admission
Mr. Pagliuca resumes direct examination of Dr. Dubin and offers Exhibit 662-RR into evidence.
Witness Testimony vs Stipulation
Discussion regarding whether to use a live witness or a stipulation for a 302 report.
Discrepancies in Epstein Victim Compensation Fund submission
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about the start date of alleged abuse (May 1, 2001) and additional claims of specific sexual acts in her submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund, which she denies making.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding observations of inappropriate conduct between Epstein and teenage females.
Scope of Cross-Examination
Argument regarding the admissibility of questions about memory, confabulation, and alcohol effects during cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio.
Scheduling and Privilege Waiver
Discussion regarding when to address the waiver theory concerning 'Jane', scheduling for Friday vs Monday, and the timeline for the government to rest its case.
Admissibility and Procedural Status
Discussion regarding not admitting a specific item and determining where questioning left off (around '33') to be handled at sidebar.
Relevance of Dr. Rocchio's testimony
Discussion regarding 'grooming the environment,' perpetrator deception, and hindsight bias effect.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity