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 | Court hearing | A court hearing took place where scheduling for the remainder of a trial was discussed. | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Dr. Dubin by Mr. Pagliuca in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A colloquy between counsel (Mr. Pagliuca) and the Court regarding an objection to how an exhibit ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding / testimony | Direct examination of witness Rocchio regarding the prevalence of delayed disclosure of sexual ab... | Court (implied by 'SOUTHERN... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding the admissibility of hearsay evidence, specifically statements co... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A legal argument took place regarding a jury's request for a document (possibly '3505-5' or '35')... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of Mr. Alessi, where he is asked to review a multi-page document and state wha... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court regarding the introduction of a redacted government exhibit into evidence. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding regarding Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Legal arg... | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A hearing or trial session where procedural matters are being discussed. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A legal argument occurred between Mr. Pagliuca and the Court over the admissibility of evidence (... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A legal argument took place regarding how to respond to a jury's request for a document. The disc... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of Dr. Dubin, where he is questioned about his knowledge of a woman named Eva ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A recross-examination of a witness named Carolyn regarding $446,000 she received in 2009. After t... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A cross-examination during which Paragraph 27 of a lawsuit was read into the record. | federal court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion in court regarding the defense's obligation to provide a witness list and Rule 26 ma... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Direct examination | A legal proceeding where questions were asked about an individual's knowledge of Mr. Epstein and ... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn, during which an attorney (Mr. Pagliuca) raises a ... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | A cross-examination during which Ms. Pomerantz argues for the relevance of a witness's experiment... | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion during a court proceeding about the logistical method for presenting documentary evi... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Mr. Pagliuca makes an application to the Court for a mistrial following the government's closing ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A court proceeding involving the direct examination of a witness named Hesse, where an attorney (... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Direct examination of a witness named Richards in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Trial proceeding | A discussion was held on the record, without the jury present, to address procedural matters conc... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn, during which Mr. Pagliuca and the Court discuss t... | Courtroom (implied) | 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 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.
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.
Unknown
The Court mentions giving a note to Mr. Pagliuca.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
Working conditions at Mr. Epstein's residence
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Alessi, about the differences in his duties and living arrangements depending on whether Mr. Epstein was present at the residence. The testimony covers access to the house, working hours, and the presence of other staff.
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.
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.
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.
Acknowledgment of ruling
Mr. Pagliuca thanks the judge after the ruling is made.
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.
Rebuttal to Ms. Comey's argument
Mr. Pagliuca states his disagreement with Ms. Comey, asserting that the omission of details is significant.
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.
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.
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.
Questioning about a 1994 flight and associated individuals.
Mr. Pagliuca questions Dr. Dubin about a document related to a 1994 flight, asking him to identify individuals listed, including 'JE' (assumed to be Jeffrey Epstein) and Eva Andersson.
Recollection of the date of an event involving Ms. Maxwell
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Alessi, about the specific date of an event. The witness's recollection of the year changes multiple times during the questioning, from 2001, to 2000, and finally to 2002.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity