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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-01-15 | Direct examination | Direct examination of Dr. Rocchio in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Court filing date of the transcript document. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing (filing date) regarding the admissibility of evidence (contact book vs household ma... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Admission of Exhibit 662-RR | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of Dr. Dubin resumes in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Alessi in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Cross-examination of witness Carolyn in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of Dr. Dubin in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding: Cross-examination of witness Carolyn. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding/hearing, likely a cross-examination involving 'Carolyn'. Discussion includes fou... | Court (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving cross-examination of witness Dubin. | Southern District (implied NY) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing date of the court transcript document. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court Recess | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Swearing in of witness Dr. Eva Dubin | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony regarding Government Exhibit 15 (GX-15) | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding opening statements and admissibility of arguments about witness coaching. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing date for the transcript document. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Sidebar conference regarding a procedural error during the cross-examination of witness Alessi. | Courtroom (Sidebar) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing date of the transcript document (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Discussion regarding witne... | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Cross-examination of Mr. Alessi | Courtroom (Case 1:20-cr-003... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Legal argument regarding the scope of cross-examination for witness Carolyn. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing involving the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Shawn in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
DOJ-OGR-00018168.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript in which attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions a witness, Alessi, about his working conditions for Mr. Epstein. The witness confirms that when Epstein was at the residence, he and his wife were required to be there 24 hours a day, starting at 5 a.m., and no other contractors were permitted, a situation the witness describes as 'slavery'. When Epstein was away, the couple stayed in a separate apartment.
DOJ-OGR-00018164.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on an occasion when Mr. Epstein picked up a "Ms. Jane" from her home in West Palm Beach, Florida, and drove her to his house. The topic then shifts to renovations at a Palm Beach house, with the attorney introducing Government Exhibit 297, dated April 4, 1994, as evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018163.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, regarding a 2020 declaration where he stated he was instructed by Jeffrey Epstein to pick up a woman referred to as 'Ms. Jane' in West Palm Beach and drive her to Epstein's home. Alessi expresses confusion about the 'declaration' terminology but confirms that the signature on the document dated July 9 is definitely his.
DOJ-OGR-00018162.jpg
This document is page 61 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument during the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. Ms. Comey objects to the defense using a prior declaration, arguing it isn't inconsistent, but the Court overrules the objection, allowing Mr. Pagliuca to question the witness about the discrepancy between 'multiple occasions' (testimony) and 'one' (declaration).
DOJ-OGR-00018161.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between attorneys Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca regarding the consistency of a witness's (Alessi) testimony. The discussion focuses on impeaching the witness over the specific years (between 1993-1996) and the number of occasions he observed events involving Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell, and a person named Jane in West Palm Beach. The attorneys quote prior statements to challenge the witness's current testimony during cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018160.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) detailing a sidebar conversation between the Judge and defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca during the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. The discussion focuses on a semantic argument regarding whether the witness's prior testimony of 'multiple occasions' is inconsistent with a specific statement of observing a person named 'Jane' exactly 'three' times at Epstein's Palm Beach home. The defense argues that 'three' contradicts 'multiple,' while the Court questions this logic.
DOJ-OGR-00018159.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Maxwell). It depicts a brief exchange during the cross-examination of witness Alessi, where attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues about inconsistencies in specific paragraphs, but the Court sustains objections against them.
DOJ-OGR-00018158.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of witness Juan Alessi (likely in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions Alessi about his signature on a document labeled 'JA-1' dated July 9, 2020. Prosecutor Ms. Comey objects to the reading of the document, claiming it is not inconsistent testimony, while Pagliuca moves to introduce the entire exhibit.
DOJ-OGR-00018156.jpg
This document is page 55 of a court transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts a procedural discussion during the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi (likely Juan Alessi). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge discuss referencing specific lines from 'yesterday's testimony' and a deposition to establish context for the witness.
DOJ-OGR-00018155.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on prior deposition testimony from exhibit 3504-22. Another attorney, Ms. Comey, objects, arguing that the testimony is not inconsistent with what has already been presented, leading to a procedural discussion with the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00018153.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi (likely Juan Alessi) by Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Alessi's previous testimony in 2016, conducted in Fort Lauderdale by Brad Edwards (Virginia Roberts' lawyer), regarding a person named 'Jane' and events in 1994 or 1995. Alessi claims in the current testimony that he may have confused 'two girls' during that previous deposition.
DOJ-OGR-00018151.jpg
This document is a transcript page from a court sidebar conference in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca apologizes for an unintentional error during the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. Prosecutor Ms. Comey criticizes his preparation and suggests a protocol for reading prior inconsistent statements, while the Judge accepts the apology as an accident but warns that a different approach will be needed if the error repeats.
DOJ-OGR-00018149.jpg
Page 48 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca asks if Alessi met a person identified as 'Jane' in 1998 or 2000, which the witness denies. The Court intervenes to ensure 'Jane's' real name is not mentioned, and Pagliuca confirms he has redacted the name from his copies.
DOJ-OGR-00018147.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Alessi's purchase of a $590,000 property with his wife in West Palm Beach in September 2002, which is linked chronologically to a break-in at Mr. Epstein's house. Another attorney, Ms. Comey, objects to the line of questioning, and the court sustains the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00018143.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the cross-examination of Mr. Alessi, filed on August 10, 2022. The testimony references a previous deposition from September 8, 2009, where Alessi admitted to stealing a total of $6,300 on two separate occasions at night. The questioning attorney attributes the theft to Alessi's 'financial problems,' which Alessi appears to confirm.
DOJ-OGR-00018141.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about his prior deposition testimony concerning an incident where he went to a house at night to get money while no one was home. The court is also present, facilitating the proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00018133.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a logistical discussion between a judge and counsel (Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca). The main topic is how to display video evidence to the jury without it being visible at the counsel's tables. The timing of this technical arrangement is coordinated around a planned 10:30 morning break and the upcoming cross-examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi.
DOJ-OGR-00018099.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing the end of testimony from a witness, Mr. Alessi. Alessi testifies that he never saw Mr. Epstein again after an unspecified incident. Following this, the attorneys and the judge agree to adjourn for the day, with the court scheduled to resume at 9:30 the next morning.
DOJ-OGR-00018098.jpg
A court transcript page from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of witness John Alessi. Alessi testifies that following an incident involving a picture, he reached an agreement with Jeffrey Epstein where Epstein would not press criminal charges but would instead treat the incident as a loan. Alessi confirms he repaid Epstein $6,300 via money order and was interviewed by the police at Epstein's request.
DOJ-OGR-00018097.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. Alessi testifies about being contacted by Mr. Epstein, meeting with him, and being confronted by Epstein about stealing money. The confrontation involved Epstein showing Alessi a small picture of his face that appeared inside a house.
DOJ-OGR-00018089.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. Alessi testifies about their duties cleaning Mr. Epstein's massage room and explicitly mentions finding a 'large dildo' during the years 1995 through 1998. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca objects during the questioning to request specific time frames.
DOJ-OGR-00018088.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Mr. Alessi. He is being questioned by an attorney, Ms. Comey, about his experiences cleaning up after Mr. Epstein's massages between 1994 and 2002. Alessi states that he did not clean up towels after every massage, explaining that repeat massage therapists would bring the towels to the laundry room themselves, unlike new ones.
DOJ-OGR-00018085.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, from the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a dialogue between an attorney, Ms. Comey, the Court, and another attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding the admission of evidence. The Court admits exhibit 2A unsealed and exhibits 2C through 2W under seal to protect the identities of witnesses and third parties, a measure to which Mr. Pagliuca has no objection.
DOJ-OGR-00018084.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, covering the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca objects to the admission of exhibits 2C through 2W, arguing they were not written by Mr. Alessi or his wife and lack authentication. The Court (Judge) asks to see 'the book' containing the exhibits and subsequently overrules the objection.
DOJ-OGR-00018081.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring a voir dire examination of witness Mr. Alessi. Prosecutor Ms. Comey attempts to introduce Government Exhibits 2A through 2W, requesting most be filed under seal. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi to establish that he left his position at the end of 2002 and therefore would not have taken messages or had personal knowledge of events occurring after that date.
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