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 | N/A | Court Recess pending verdict | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding Exhibit 3505-005 | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal sidebar/conference regarding a response to a jury question concerning witness Carolyn and a... | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell where she is questioned about computer files and a contact list. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell regarding lists of names associated with Jeffrey Epstein. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding media reports of Epstein's flight logs | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of Mrs. Hesse | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Shawn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Nicole Hesse | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Carolyn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 5 into evidence. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross Examination of Lisa Rocchio by Mr. Pagliuca | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Redirect examination of witness Carolyn. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conclusion of Shawn's testimony and calling of Nicole Hesse to the stand. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio regarding the 'Craven article' and the definition of grooming. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court recess taken after discussion between counsel and judge. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of Exhibit 52 (a book) to the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding sexualized massages and relationship timeline. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Review of evidentiary exhibits (1J, 1K, 1M) during trial testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct Examination of Carolyn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of Juan Patricio Alessi | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Afternoon Court Session during Jury Deliberations | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the 'business record exception' and admissibility of phone logs/notes. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Mr. Pagliuca summarizes testimony from four witnesses (Carolyn, Jane, Kate, Mr. Alessi) regarding... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Testimony | A witness is being questioned about Jeffrey Epstein's use of masseuses. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00014652.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. In it, the judge (THE COURT) outlines the logistical procedures for jury deliberations to the involved parties (Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Pagliuca, Mr. Everdell). The discussion covers the daily schedule for deliberations, the materials the jury will be given (instructions, verdict form, exhibits), and the roles of court staff in managing the process.
DOJ-OGR-00014651.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) recording a sidebar conference between the Judge and legal counsel (Moe, Menninger, Sternheim, Pagliuca). The discussion focuses on instructions for alternate jurors (specifically identifying jurors 125, 149, 151, 152, and 170), confirming they should remain 'on call' rather than stay in the building due to pandemic concerns, and setting parameters for evening deliberations.
DOJ-OGR-00017368.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge regarding a juror's scheduling conflict around the Christmas holiday. Mr. Pagliuca argues that his decision on how to proceed depends on whether the juror is from the main or alternate pool, as this information would have affected their initial jury selection strategy.
DOJ-OGR-00017346.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. A judge (The Court) instructs the parties that jury deliberations will proceed every day of the week until a verdict is reached. The judge advises that any juror facing a hardship should notify Ms. Williams, and then asks Ms. Williams to bring the jurors out.
DOJ-OGR-00014478.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca objects to the prosecution's closing argument regarding 'grooming-by-proxy' for Jeffrey Epstein; the Judge overrules this, clarifying that while experts couldn't testify to it, lawyers could argue it based on evidence. Prosecutor Ms. Moe then discusses Government Exhibit 52, arguing it demonstrates knowledge and intent because the listed individuals were obviously not 'real masseuses.'
DOJ-OGR-00014477.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca requests a mistrial, arguing that the government violated a limiting instruction regarding 'Exhibit 52' (pages from a book) during closing arguments by using hearsay to prove the truth of the matter asserted—specifically linking names in the book to 'sexualized massages' described by a witness named Jane and implying Ms. Maxwell knew the individuals were minors. Pagliuca alternatively requests a curative instruction to the jury.
DOJ-OGR-00005262.jpg
This document is page 3 of a legal filing dated October 18, 2021, addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues they have received voluminous discovery materials (over 14,000 pages) from the government very recently (Oct 11-12), leaving insufficient time to review them before filing motions in limine. The document details the logistics of the hard drive deliveries to counsel in New York and Colorado, and to Ms. Maxwell at the MDC, while noting that some materials provided to Maxwell were incomplete.
DOJ-OGR-00011722.jpg
A transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Judge that they should be allowed to suggest witnesses were manipulated by civil attorneys, citing a witness named 'Carolyn' whose detailed 2008 legal filings and depositions did not mention Ms. Maxwell, implying her involvement was fabricated later. The Court overrules the objection to this line of argumentation at the opening stage but asks for evidence that attorneys explicitly told witnesses what to say.
DOJ-OGR-00011720.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) where attorney Mr. Pagliuca discusses the admissibility of evidence regarding communications between witnesses' lawyers and the government. Specifically, Pagliuca mentions an email from attorney Mr. Scarola to the government suggesting ten topics for an interview with a woman named Carolyn. The discussion centers on whether these communications (proffers and emails) are privileged and how they will be introduced without calling the lawyers as witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00011663.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing procedural discussions in a criminal case. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, requests and receives permission from the government and court to share Dr. Rocchio's testimony with two other witnesses, Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus. The court also sets a deadline of the upcoming Saturday for the government to provide its order-of-witness list and confirms with both the prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) that no plea offers have been communicated.
DOJ-OGR-00011649.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion between the judge and attorneys regarding procedural matters. The court affirms that defense experts are precluded from testifying without providing specific notice as required by Rule 16. The conversation then shifts to a specific limiting instruction for the jury, which states that the defendant cannot be convicted based on testimony about sexual conduct between 'witness 3' and 'Mr. Epstein'.
DOJ-OGR-00011648.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, involving a discussion between the Judge, defense counsel (Pagliuca, Menninger), and the government (Rohrbach). The primary topic is whether potential expert witnesses LaPorte and Naso will testify; the defense suggests it is unlikely and was done out of caution related to a document concerning 'Accuser No. 2,' while the government expresses concern about being surprised mid-trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011639.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Ms. Moe, confirms to the judge that an item was made available for inspection by the defense, resolving that issue. The judge then directs the conversation to the next matter: the admissibility of co-conspirator statements for the upcoming trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011636.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The judge instructs Mr. Pagliuca on the preferred procedure for presenting documents during cross-examination, emphasizing the use of pre-organized, tabbed paper binders for efficiency. The judge also provides for exceptions, allowing for documents not in the binder to be presented either as paper copies or on a screen.
DOJ-OGR-00011635.jpg
This document is page 14 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural debate between the Judge ('The Court') and attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding the mechanics of presenting documents during cross-examination, specifically debating the use of physical binders versus electronic displays. The Judge instructs counsel to prepare binders for potential use to ensure smooth proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00011634.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge and attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding the logistics of maintaining witness anonymity in the courtroom. Specifically, they discuss preventing the public from seeing identifying information on counsel's screens while ensuring the government and jurors have access to necessary documents.
DOJ-OGR-00011633.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) detailing a procedural argument between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge. The discussion centers on how to present documents designated for 'refreshing recollection' without exposing identifying information to the public via courtroom screens. The Judge suggests using paper to ensure anonymity, while Mr. Pagliuca argues this is impractical due to the 'thousands of pages' involved.
DOJ-OGR-00011631.jpg
This document is page 10 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a discussion between the Judge, prosecutor Ms. Comey, and defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding the testimony of a records custodian and the government's failure to list a specific financial institution prior to trial. Additionally, Mr. Pagliuca requests permission to use electronic methods for impeaching or refreshing the recollection of witnesses during the trial.
DOJ-OGR-00011628.jpg
This document is page 7 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a legal argument where the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) is barred by the Court from calling an attorney as a witness without prior briefing due to privilege concerns regarding 'Minor Victim 4'. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) then requests clarification on whether the jury will be instructed during preliminary instructions that witnesses will use pseudonyms, to which the Court agrees to address before opening statements.
DOJ-OGR-00011627.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. Prosecutor Ms. Comey addresses the Court regarding an issue where the defense has subpoenaed the attorney representing 'Minor Victim 4' to testify at trial. The government argues they cannot understand what admissible testimony this attorney could offer that isn't covered by attorney-client privilege and indicates they will move to preclude it.
DOJ-OGR-00011625.jpg
This document is page 4 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Ms. Comey (Government) argues that the defense should not be allowed to cross-examine a witness regarding juvenile arrests and old misdemeanors, and asks for a pretrial ruling to determine if she needs to disclose these facts on direct examination to 'draw the sting.' The Judge orders the parties to have a 'mature, reasonable discussion' to resolve agreed-upon issues and to submit only genuine legal disputes in writing.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014305.jpg
This document is page 32 of a confidential deposition transcript. An unnamed witness, questioned by Mr. Edwards, testifies about photographs taken by an unnamed male ('he'), confirming he took naked photos of her which were never recovered. The witness also recalls being shown photos of other 'young women in the bathtub' and confirms a prior statement that 'he' had 'lots of pictures of teenage girls'.
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 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.
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.
Unknown
The Court mentions giving a note to Mr. Pagliuca.
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.
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.
Cross-examination regarding Government Exhibit 6
Discussion regarding a study of 322 articles, specifically regarding delayed reporting of psychological issues by males versus females.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Confirmation of past events and prior legal complaints
Questioning regarding paragraph 33 of a 2009 complaint and the details of a sexual encounter with Epstein.
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.
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.
Admissibility of evidence paragraphs
Argument regarding whether specific paragraphs (12 and 206) are factually inconsistent with testimony.
Prior deposition testimony regarding Jane, Jeffrey Epstei...
Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about his previous deposition answer regarding the year Jane met Jeffrey Epstein and Glen Maxwell. Alessi clarifies his answer, stating he confused two different girls he met.
Meetings with the government and Epstein Victim Compensat...
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about meetings she attended with Mr. Scarola and the government in 2020, and whether these meetings coincided with her submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. The witness denies the timing and repeatedly states she cannot recall the meetings.
Objection to Exhibits
Objection to exhibits 2C through 2W because they were not written by Mr. Alessi or his wife and are not authenticated.
Meetings with the government and Epstein Victim Compensat...
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about meetings she attended with Mr. Scarola and the government in 2020, and whether these meetings coincided with her submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. The witness denies the timing and repeatedly states she cannot recall the meetings.
Admissibility of cross-examination question
Discussion regarding a question about 'hindsight bias phenomena' and whether it is within the scope of direct examination.
Prior deposition testimony regarding Jane, Jeffrey Epstei...
Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about his previous deposition answer regarding the year Jane met Jeffrey Epstein and Glen Maxwell. Alessi clarifies his answer, stating he confused two different girls he met.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity