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-00017995.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, featuring the direct examination of Mr. Alessi by Ms. Comey. The testimony focuses on identifying the layout of Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach property, specifically describing the 'cabana' or 'pool house' where Epstein's desk, a couch, and stereo equipment were located. Government's Exhibit 299 (GX-299), a depiction of the property layout, was admitted into evidence without objection from the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00017990.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi. The witness confirms that Government Exhibit 297 is an accurate layout of the second floor of Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach residence. Following this testimony and with no objection, the court admits the exhibit into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017986.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the afternoon session of a trial on August 10, 2022. It details the resumption of the direct examination of witness Juan Patricio Alessi by Ms. Comey. The testimony focuses on Government Exhibit 298, specifically identifying a room labeled 'foyer' using a touch screen.
DOJ-OGR-00017985.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The judge dismisses the jury for a 45-minute luncheon recess and provides procedural instructions to the counsel, Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, regarding the use of a touch screen for the official record.
DOJ-OGR-00017983.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi. Alessi testifies that Ms. Maxwell was present with Mr. Epstein at his Palm Beach residence "95 percent of the times." The witness then identifies Government Exhibit 298 as an accurate depiction of the first floor of the residence, which is subsequently admitted into evidence by the court.
DOJ-OGR-00017970.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. During a cross-examination, a witness confirms that a study concluded it is not possible to prospectively or reliably predict 'grooming behavior'. After the witness's confirmation, the questioning attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, concludes his examination.
DOJ-OGR-00017963.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio. The questioning concerns literature on child sexual abuse, leading to objections from attorneys Ms. Pomerantz and Mr. Pagliuca regarding the use of the term 'perpetrator' and the scope of the witness's answer. The court overrules these objections and directs the witness to continue.
DOJ-OGR-00017956.jpg
Court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The excerpt captures a procedural discussion between attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Pomerantz regarding a binder of materials (including Daubert hearing testimony and '3500 material') for witness Dr. Rocchio. Following the discussion, the jury enters, and Mr. Pagliuca begins his cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio.
DOJ-OGR-00017955.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, discusses his intention to use a specific study from John Jay College during cross-examination. The study concluded that certain factors cannot be used to prospectively predict grooming behavior, and Mr. Pagliuca receives permission from the Court to question a witness on these findings.
DOJ-OGR-00017953.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge regarding the admissibility of a question about 'hindsight bias phenomena' and victim blaming. The Judge rules that the proposed question is 'beyond the scope' of the direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00017952.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It features a dialogue between Mr. Pagliuca and the Court regarding the testimony of Dr. Rocchio, specifically discussing the concept of 'grooming the environment,' perpetrator deception, and 'hindsight bias.' The attorney argues that this testimony is appropriate to explain how a perpetrator deceives those around them.
DOJ-OGR-00017951.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, discusses the testimony of Dr. Rocchio. He focuses on the concept of "grooming the environment" and references an article she wrote, "Stages of Sexual Grooming," intending to question her about "hindsight bias phenomena." The Court interrupts to question whether the contents of the entire article are within the scope of the direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00017950.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the presiding judge. They discuss the permissible scope of cross-examination, with the judge warning against introducing new, undisclosed expert testimony. The judge references a prior Daubert hearing and instructs another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, to object if the rules are violated.
DOJ-OGR-00017948.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and a lawyer (MS. POMERANTZ). Ms. Pomerantz raises a concern about the scope of questioning by another lawyer, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding a witness's testimony on the delayed disclosure of sexual abuse. The discussion centers on defining the line between permissible cross-examination and improperly soliciting expert opinions.
DOJ-OGR-00017945.jpg
This document is page 72 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument between Ms. Pomerantz and Mr. Pagliuca before the Judge regarding the scope of cross-examination for an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio. The defense (Pagliuca) argues that topics such as confabulation, the process of storing memories, and the effect of alcohol on memory are relevant to explaining delayed disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00017944.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Prosecutor Pomerantz, and Defense Attorney Pagliuca regarding a misunderstanding of a court order, followed by a recess. After the recess, Ms. Pomerantz raises an issue regarding Mr. Pagliuca's intent to cross-examine expert witness Dr. Rocchio on topics outside her direct testimony, specifically mentioning the 'halo effect' and 'suggestive memory'.
DOJ-OGR-00017942.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a judge's remarks during a hearing. The judge explains the reasoning for sustaining an objection related to a prior "Daubert" ruling on the scope of testimony about child grooming. The judge highlights a significant misunderstanding between opposing counsel, Mr. Pagliuca and another unnamed lawyer, but concludes that the violation of the ruling was not intentional.
DOJ-OGR-00017939.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony focuses on the psychological aspects of childhood sexual abuse, specifically the role of trust in treatment. Another attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the line of questioning, leading to rulings from the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00017935.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, who discusses the commonality of delayed disclosure of sexual abuse in clinical and forensic practices. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to a question regarding the witness being the first person patients disclose abuse to, but the objection is overruled by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00017927.jpg
This document is page 54 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The page captures a brief exchange during the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, where the Judge ('The Court') addresses a procedural disagreement regarding a question asked by Mr. Pagliuca, noting the necessity of the court reporter. The majority of the page is blank, indicating the session continued on the next page.
DOJ-OGR-00017926.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument during the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to a question from Ms. Pomerantz, claiming it violates a prior agreement with the government. The Court sustains the objection, expressing bafflement at the apparent misunderstanding or breach of the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00017924.jpg
This document is page 51 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts the direct examination of expert witness Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz regarding whether a 'groomer' is always the recipient of sexual gratification. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca objects to the questioning, the objection is sustained by the Court, and Ms. Pomerantz subsequently requests a sidebar conference.
DOJ-OGR-00017923.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. During the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, the judge sustains an objection to a line of questioning about anecdotal treatment discussions, deeming it beyond scope. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, acknowledges the ruling and prepares to continue.
DOJ-OGR-00017921.jpg
This is page 48 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The witness, Rocchio (likely an expert witness), is testifying about the psychological trauma of victims realizing they were fooled in a relationship they trusted. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca interrupts the testimony to request a sidebar conference with the Judge.
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.
Unknown
The Court mentions giving a note to Mr. Pagliuca.
Cross-examination duration
Estimating cross-examination will take an hour to an hour and a half.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Scheduling and Privilege Waiver
Discussion regarding when to address the waiver theory concerning 'Jane', scheduling for Friday vs Monday, and the timeline for the government to rest its case.
Procedural discussion on evidence presentation
Discussion regarding the use of physical binders versus electronic screens for presenting documents to witnesses and the government during trial.
Admissibility of Interrogatory Questions
Discussion regarding the admission of questions 16 and 17 from a prior document concerning Carolyn's visits to Epstein's home and payments received.
Cross-examination
Questioning regarding signature on Exhibit C8.
Document presentation logistics
Discussion regarding the use of electronic screens versus paper for showing documents to refresh recollection while protecting anonymity.
Request to approach bench
Your Honor, may we approach?
Witness Preclusion
Clarifying that Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards are precluded so they can be released.
Defense strategy and calling attorneys as witnesses
Pagliuca argues it is inappropriate to discuss defense strategy; Court rules he cannot call an attorney as a witness without briefing.
New Witness Disclosure
Discussion of newly disclosed witness William Brown.
Admissibility of Evidence (Exhibit 52)
Discussion regarding whether Exhibit 52 will be admitted in redacted form and if the defense will stipulate that sub-exhibits are true copies.
Witness Anonymity and Courtroom Logistics
Discussion regarding how to handle document display screens to prevent public disclosure of anonymous witness identities while maintaining efficiency.
Witness Binder / Cross-Examination
Discussion regarding the contents of a binder for the witness (containing Daubert hearing testimony and 3500 material) prior to the jury entering.
Cross-examination regarding substance abuse
Attorney questions witness about drug use in 2002-2003 and at age 13.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity