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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal examination | Recross-examination of Carolyn by Mr. Pagliuca. | Southern District | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness named Alessi by Mr. Pagliuca, with Ms. Comey and a judge present. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell where she is questioned about electronic records and updates to c... | Unknown | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn regarding a deposition document from October 21, 2009. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Deposition of an unnamed witness conducted by Mr. Edwards, with Mr. Pagliuca present as counsel. ... | Not mentioned | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio by Mr. Pagliuca in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness regarding a study on 'Coercive Control Beyond Intimate Partner Vio... | Courtroom (implied by 'THE ... | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Cross-examination | Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines the witness, Rocchio, during a court proceeding identified as Case 1:... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Cross-examination | Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines the witness, Rocchio, regarding a letter from the government and the ... | Court in the Southern District | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Cross-examination | A witness, Rocchio, is being cross-examined about the scientific testing of a sexual grooming mod... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court hearing | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio, during which attorney Pagliuca requests the witness's time ... | Southern District Court | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Cross-examination | Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines Rocchio during a court hearing regarding a government contract. | Southern District Court (im... | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio by Mr. Pagliuca regarding the scientific basis and error rat... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court proceeding | A cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio, during which a legal argument occurred between Mr... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court hearing | A court hearing where Government Exhibit 3 was admitted into evidence and a witness, Dr. Rocchio,... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court testimony | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio by Mr. Pagliuca regarding the existence of a definitive list... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio regarding a study. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Recess | The court took a 30-minute luncheon recess at 12:55, scheduled to resume at 1:25. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Admission of Defendant's Exhibit B. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Court hearing | A cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | Admission of evidence | Defendant's Exhibit A was admitted to the hearing record. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Court hearing involving cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio. | Southern District Court | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio regarding delayed disclosure studies. | Courtroom | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Court hearing in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Maxwell). Witness Rocchio is cross-examined regard... | Courtroom (Southern District) | View |
| 2025-01-15 | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 2 into evidence | Courtroom | View |
DOJ-OGR-00013356.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, concerning the direct examination of a witness named Hesse. The text details a legal discussion between attorney Ms. Moe and the Court regarding the admissibility and formatting of message exhibits, followed by a recess. After the recess, Ms. Moe highlights Government Exhibit 606, a household manual, specifically quoting instructions on page 7 regarding how employees should record phone messages.
DOJ-OGR-00013353.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, U.S. v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between the prosecution (Ms. Moe) and defense (Mr. Pagliuca) regarding the admissibility of spiral-bound message books kept by household staff, specifically Ms. Hesse, under the 'business records exception.' The defense argues that despite Ms. Hesse's records being well-maintained, other messages in the collection are undated and unsigned, challenging the consistency of the household practice.
DOJ-OGR-00013350.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about the admissibility of evidence. Attorneys Ms. Moe and Mr. Pagliuca debate with the judge whether 'message slips,' allegedly from a victim named Carolyn, can be admitted under the business record exception to the hearsay rule. The discussion also covers the authentication of these slips, which are described as often undated, unsigned, and cryptic.
DOJ-OGR-00013336.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures the cross-examination of a witness named Shawn. Shawn denies having any conversations with his ex-partner, Carolyn, about Jeffrey Epstein or his testimony. A new line of questioning begins by Mr. Pagliuca, focusing on whether Shawn recalls visiting a house in Palm Beach in 2002.
DOJ-OGR-00013334.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Shawn. Shawn testifies that he accompanied a girl named Carolyn (then 16) to Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach house multiple times, waiting outside for an hour while she went in alone. He states that she would emerge with money in hundred-dollar bills and admits that they were using drugs during this time period.
DOJ-OGR-00013333.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (inferred from context and case number). A witness named Shawn testifies about a photograph taken on a boat during Melissa's 16th birthday, identifying Carolyn, Melissa, and Candace. Shawn also testifies to accompanying Melissa to Jeffrey Epstein's house multiple times, noting that Melissa took a girl named Amanda there, which drew an objection from the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00013332.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Shawn. The witness identifies a photograph, Government Exhibit 105, as being from 'Melissa's 16th birthday' and names Carolyn, Melissa, and Candace as individuals in the photo. Following a request from the government's attorney, Ms. Comey, the court admits the exhibit into evidence under seal to protect the privacy of the individuals depicted.
DOJ-OGR-00013331.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Shawn by prosecutor Ms. Comey. Shawn testifies about observing a girl named Melissa, who was sixteen at the time, visiting Jeffrey Epstein's house accompanied by a woman named Carolyn. The witness states that after staying inside for an hour, the two females emerged carrying money.
DOJ-OGR-00013329.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a sidebar conversation between attorneys and a judge. The discussion revolves around a procedural issue: whether the prosecution can refer to a person named Amanda Lazlo as a victim, given that her name was not previously disclosed to the defense as required by a court order. The attorneys debate the admissibility of testimony about Amanda from a witness named Carolyn the previous day, with Amanda's age (stated as 18) being a key point of contention.
DOJ-OGR-00013327.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Shawn. Shawn identifies two former girlfriends, Melissa and Amanda Lazlo, and confirms he dated them concurrently with a woman named Carolyn. Crucially, Shawn testifies that Amanda Lazlo was 15 or 16 years old the first time he saw her go to Jeffrey Epstein's house, and identifies Melissa's name in an exhibit listed under 'child name'.
DOJ-OGR-00013324.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Shawn by prosecutor Ms. Comey. The witness identifies Jeffrey Epstein in a photograph (Exhibit 112) and testifies about conversations with a person named Carolyn regarding interactions at Epstein's Palm Beach house involving Jeffrey, Sarah, and an unidentified woman. The page includes a procedural exchange where the judge corrects a ruling on a hearsay objection from 'sustained' to 'overruled'.
DOJ-OGR-00013318.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. A witness named Shawn is under direct examination by Ms. Comey regarding the location of Jeffrey Epstein's house on El Brillo Way and the socioeconomic difference between Palm Beach and West Palm Beach. The witness describes living with a woman named Carolyn in West Palm Beach and rarely visiting Palm Beach due to a lack of money.
DOJ-OGR-00013274.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about attorney-client privilege. An unnamed speaker outlines three reasons why certain materials should not be considered privileged, including that they were intended for a third party or would lose privilege if shown to the government. The judge acknowledges the argument but notes a prior ruling, after which counsel for the government (Ms. Moe) and other lawyers (Mr. Everdell, Mr. Pagliuca) indicate they have no further points on the matter at that time.
DOJ-OGR-00003093.jpg
This document is a page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed April 16, 2021) containing excerpts of a deposition. The defendant (implied to be Ghislaine Maxwell) testifies that she was unaware of Jeffrey Epstein having sexual activities with anyone other than herself, a 'blond,' and a 'brunette' during the 1990s and 2000s. The document includes legal analysis arguing that the defendant's statement '[w]hen I was with him' referred strictly to moments of sexual acts rather than the duration of their relationship.
DOJ-OGR-00003087.jpg
A page from a deposition transcript (filed in the Ghislaine Maxwell case) where the witness is questioned about recruiting underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein. The witness denies finding 'girls' and insists their job was to find adult professionals (staff), though they acknowledge that Virginia Roberts was 17 years old.
DOJ-OGR-00003086.jpg
This document is page 152 of a legal filing (Document 204) from the criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text argues against dismissing a perjury count, stating that the defendant's denial of knowledge regarding Epstein's scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages was not due to fundamental ambiguity in the questioning. It includes a transcript excerpt from a deposition where Giuffre's counsel asks the defendant to list girls under 18 she brought to Epstein's house, to which Mr. Pagliuca objects.
DOJ-OGR-00003085.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, presents a transcript of testimony where an unnamed defendant is questioned about their knowledge of a scheme by Jeffrey Epstein to recruit underage girls for sexual massages. The defendant denies knowledge, a statement noted as a charged false statement, while their counsel, Mr. Pagliuca, objects. The document also references a related defamation case where a victim, Giuffre, alleged both Epstein and the defendant sexualized a massage, and notes the Government's intent to use this evidence at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00014729.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. A judge instructs the involved parties, including Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Moe, that jury deliberations will continue daily until a verdict is reached and asks them to remain available. The judge also provides a protocol for addressing scheduling hardships through a Ms. Williams.
DOJ-OGR-00014726.jpg
This document is a court transcript from an afternoon session on August 10, 2022, concerning jury deliberation scheduling. The judge relays a note from the jury requesting to end at 5:00 p.m. and, citing the omicron variant, instructs that deliberations will proceed every day, including weekends if necessary, until a verdict is reached. Attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Moe briefly comment, deferring to the court's decision.
DOJ-OGR-00014667.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge and several other individuals (likely attorneys) about scheduling jury deliberations. The judge outlines a plan for the jury to deliberate from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM the following day and considers offering them the option to continue on Thursday, even though it is close to Christmas Eve.
DOJ-OGR-00014665.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a dispute between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding a response to a jury note. The jury requested an 'FBI deposition 3505-005' referenced during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The defense attempted to include testimony from Special Agent Jason Richards in the response, but the Court overruled the request, deeming it unresponsive to the jury's specific ask.
DOJ-OGR-00014664.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a discussion between the judge and attorneys (Comey, Pagliuca, Sternheim) regarding a jury note and testimony related to Exhibit 3505-005 given by witnesses 'Carolyn' and Special Agent Jason Richards. The judge notes that copies of the notes provided to counsel must be redacted because the jury foreperson signed them.
DOJ-OGR-00014663.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Ms. Comey, and Mr. Pagliuca regarding how to respond to a jury question about an item labeled '3505-005'. The parties agree to send a note clarifying that 3505-005 is not an admitted exhibit but referring the jury to 'Carolyn's testimony' regarding it.
DOJ-OGR-00014662.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge. The conversation revolves around how to respond to a jury's request for a specific document that is not formally in evidence, while testimony about the document is. The attorneys and the judge debate the precise wording of the response to avoid confusing the jury or diminishing the value of the admitted testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00014661.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between attorneys Ms. Comey, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge regarding a document used for impeachment that is not formally in evidence. They discuss how to properly handle this situation, with the judge proposing a clarifying instruction for the jury.
Cross-examination regarding Craven article
Discussion about the definition and understanding of 'sexual grooming of children' based on a 2006 article.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Direct Examination / Exhibit Admission
Mr. Pagliuca resumes direct examination of Dr. Dubin and offers Exhibit 662-RR into evidence.
Admissibility and Procedural Status
Discussion regarding not admitting a specific item and determining where questioning left off (around '33') to be handled at sidebar.
Rebuttal to Ms. Comey's argument
Mr. Pagliuca states his disagreement with Ms. Comey, asserting that the omission of details is significant.
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.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding observations of inappropriate conduct between Epstein and teenage females.
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.
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.
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 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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity