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-00018073.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from a case involving 'Alessi - Direct.' It records a legal proceeding where Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi, who testifies that he has no personal knowledge regarding whether Exhibit 52 was touched by Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. The Court makes rulings on objections and reserves on a matter pending additional testimony, with Ms. Comey also participating in the discussion.
DOJ-OGR-00018068.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions witness Mr. Alessi regarding 'Exhibit 52' (a book/directory), establishing that Alessi had not seen the object for 19 years since leaving Epstein's employment and could not account for its chain of custody during that time. The Judge also sustains an objection regarding the foundation of the evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018066.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, during the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. The Court and counsel (Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca) discuss the admissibility of testimony regarding an exhibit, specifically a 'book' (likely an address book) where the witness noted his and his wife's names were missing, leading him to believe it was a later version. The judge sustains a foundation objection and orders the jury to disregard the witness's belief about the book's version.
DOJ-OGR-00018062.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. An attorney, Ms. Comey, questions Alessi about whether his name, his wife's name, or Sarah Kellen's name appears in a specific book or binder. Another attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the line of questioning as leading, which the court sustains before permitting a rephrased version of the question.
DOJ-OGR-00018060.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It records the direct examination of witness Juan Alessi by prosecutor Ms. Comey. The Judge sustains a defense objection regarding a lack of foundation for Alessi's claim that an object was a 'later version of the book,' instructs the jury to disregard that statement, and allows the examination to proceed regarding a 'booklet.'
DOJ-OGR-00018059.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between a judge and two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca. The conversation centers on a foundational objection to an exhibit, specifically a book. The judge recounts the testimony of a witness, Mr. Alessi, who claimed the book in question is a later, thinner version of one he saw while employed by Mr. Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00018058.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between attorneys Ms. Comey, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge. The conversation centers on whether to admit an exhibit into evidence immediately or reserve it for a later time. Ms. Comey gives contradictory answers, first agreeing to reserve and then stating she wants to admit it now, which she explains by saying she misunderstood the judge's question.
DOJ-OGR-00018057.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed August 10, 2022) during the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. A procedural discussion occurs between the Judge (The Court), Defense Attorney Mr. Pagliuca, and Prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding an objection to the foundation of the witness's knowledge about a specific 'book' created after the witness left employment in 2002. The Court decides to allow the question provisionally, noting the testimony will be stricken if proper foundation is not established.
DOJ-OGR-00018056.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures a brief exchange between the judge (THE COURT), Mr. Pagliuca, and Ms. Comey, where they agree that a witness is not needed to verify copies. The judge then announces a short recess.
DOJ-OGR-00018055.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge regarding the admission of Exhibit 52 (and sub-exhibits A, D, E, F, G, H) in redacted form. The header indicates this occurred during the direct examination of witness Alessi.
DOJ-OGR-00018054.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion between attorneys Ms. Comey, Mr. Pagliuca, and the presiding judge. The parties agree on a method for admitting exhibit 52 into evidence, deciding to use a redacted version consisting of specific pages (52A, D, E, F, G, H) for the jury. The agreement clarifies that the exhibit will be authenticated and admitted in this limited form.
DOJ-OGR-00018053.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between two attorneys, Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey, in front of a judge. Mr. Pagliuca objects to the method of having a witness compare a copy of a document to a book, arguing about the lack of foundation for the evidence. The judge finds the objection reasonable and instructs Ms. Comey to address the procedural issue.
DOJ-OGR-00018052.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, detailing a direct examination of a witness named Alessi. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge (THE COURT) and attorneys (Ms. Comey, Mr. Pagliuca) about the witness having compared Government Exhibits 52A and 52 before taking the stand. Ms. Comey describes this as 'homework' to confirm the documents were copies, a practice the judge acknowledges.
DOJ-OGR-00018051.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, by an attorney, Ms. Comey, regarding the identification of Government Exhibit 52A as a copy of a page from Government Exhibit 52. The exchange includes a legal objection for 'lack of foundation' by another attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and a discussion with the judge to clarify the nature of the exhibits.
DOJ-OGR-00018049.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Alessi. Alessi is being questioned about a book he saw while working for a 'Mr. Epstein' and confirms that a version he recently reviewed is a later version, printed after he left his employment. The transcript also records objections from an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and rulings from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00018041.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness, Ms. Drescher. She is questioned about a young woman named Virginia who frequently visited Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach home while he and Ms. Maxwell were present. Ms. Drescher testifies that Virginia appeared to be 14 or 15 years old and that she was sometimes told to pick Virginia up.
DOJ-OGR-00018035.jpg
This court transcript details the testimony of a witness, identified as a driver named Alessi. The witness states that on approximately two occasions, he saw a person named 'Jane' with luggage at Mr. Epstein's house in Palm Beach. He further testifies to driving Jane, Mr. Epstein, Ms. Maxwell, and others to the airport and witnessing Jane board their plane.
DOJ-OGR-00018031.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330, US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Alessi by prosecutor Ms. Comey. The witness confirms seeing two underage females at Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach residence; one is referred to by the pseudonym 'Jane' to protect her identity, and the witness explicitly identifies the second female as Virginia Roberts.
DOJ-OGR-00018020.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, by attorney Ms. Comey. Mr. Alessi states he has no personal knowledge of a document maintained after he left Mr. Epstein's employment in 2002, but he does identify an address on the document as being Mr. Epstein's residence. An objection from another attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, is overruled by the court, and 'Government's Exhibit 606' is admitted into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018019.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, who is being questioned about his knowledge of an 'Exhibit 606' and confirms that he threw away a document he received after leaving a position in 2002. The transcript includes objections from an attorney, Ms. Comey, and rulings from the court.
DOJ-OGR-00018017.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. Alessi is questioned about and confirms recognizing several pages of a booklet given to him by a Ms. Maxwell. Following this testimony, an attorney, Ms. Comey, offers the item as Exhibit 606 into evidence for the government.
DOJ-OGR-00018009.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a legal case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a portion of the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi, who is being asked to identify portions of a multi-page list he recognizes. After an objection for a leading question is sustained by the court, Mr. Alessi confirms that he recognizes the entire contents of pages 1, 2, and 3 of the document in question.
DOJ-OGR-00018007.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the testimony of a witness named Alessi. Alessi is questioned about a booklet or checklist from approximately 20-23 years prior and recounts a conversation with a 'Ms. Maxwell' in which he refused to perform the associated work. The questioning is then directed to Government Exhibit 606, a paper copy of which is provided to the witness in court.
DOJ-OGR-00017999.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. A witness named Alessi is being questioned by Ms. Comey regarding their 12-year employment with Mr. Epstein. Alessi testifies to seeing female guests (estimated to be in their twenties) hundreds of times, noting that they were topless by the pool approximately 75-80% of the time.
DOJ-OGR-00017997.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Alessi (likely Juan Alessi) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The witness describes the layout of Epstein's Palm Beach property, specifically a structure and a wall he nicknamed the 'Berlin Wall' which obstructed the view from the staff quarters to the main house. The testimony is interrupted by an objection from defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding a question about where Ms. Maxwell slept, citing a lack of specific dates.
Cross-examination regarding Craven article
Discussion about the definition and understanding of 'sexual grooming of children' based on a 2006 article.
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.
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.
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.
Cross-examination duration
Estimating cross-examination will take an hour to an hour and a half.
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 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.
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 Government Exhibit 6
Discussion regarding a study of 322 articles, specifically regarding delayed reporting of psychological issues by males versus females.
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.
Witness's personal background information
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Dr. Dubin, to establish her identity and personal background, including her residence, age, marital status, husband's name, and number of children.
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.
Inconsistency in witness testimony regarding dates of all...
Mr. Pagliuca argues that a witness's testimony should be impeached due to a discrepancy in the timeline of alleged events. He states the indictment and direct testimony mentioned 2001, but the complaint and cross-examination point to a 2002-2003 timeframe.
Admissibility of evidence for impeachment
Mr. Pagliuca argues to admit paragraphs 207 and 208 regarding Sarah Kellen to impeach the witness by omission because Ms. Maxwell's name is not mentioned. The Court sustains the objection, finding the paragraphs inadmissible.
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.
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 a 2016 statement
Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about a previous statement under oath concerning recommendations for massages from Mr. Epstein's friends.
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.
Cross-examination regarding sexual intercourse with Mr. E...
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about a previous deposition answer where she denied having sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein. The witness confirms the previous answer but then provides a detailed clarification.
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.
Scope of cross-examination regarding a study on grooming ...
Mr. Pagliuca previews his intent to cross-examine a witness about a study (disclosure 3502-018) which concluded that five factors cannot be used to prospectively predict grooming behavior. The Court grants permission, noting it is consistent with the witness's testimony.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity