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 | Court proceeding | A court hearing to discuss the schedule for jury deliberations. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Mr. Alessi by attorney Mr. Pagliuca, with an objection from Ms. Come... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Deposition | A witness is questioned under oath about their knowledge of and contributions to a specific docum... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Testimony | An unidentified witness is questioned about the existence of a hard copy document containing phon... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Testimony / deposition | A colloquy where an unnamed defendant was questioned about Jeffrey Epstein's activities. The defe... | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal hearing regarding evidentiary disputes over a book/list. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Daubert hearing | A prior hearing mentioned in the transcript where literature and the scope of examination were di... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Court testimony / cross-examination | Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines Mr. Alessi about his prior sworn testimony regarding his supervisors,... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | A discussion took place between Mr. Pagliuca and the Court regarding a juror's scheduling conflic... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of witness Carolyn regarding a prior deposition. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Witness testimony | Special Agent Jason Richards is called as a witness, sworn in, and begins his direct examination ... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. | Court | View |
| N/A | Witness examination | Direct, cross, and redirect examination of witness Jason Richards. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Witness examination | Direct and cross-examination of witness Eva Adnersson Dubin. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Testimony / deposition | G. Maxwell is questioned about her work for Jeffrey, providing contact information, and her knowl... | Court or legal proceeding | View |
| N/A | Hearing | Mr. Pagliuca has a hearing in Colorado. | Colorado | View |
| N/A | Court testimony | Ms. Drescher is questioned about her observations of Virginia at Mr. Epstein's home. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Court proceeding | The court proceeding documented in the transcript, discussing jury deliberation schedules. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of witness NICOLE HESSE by Mr. Pagliuca. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Legal proceeding | Cross-examination of witness SHAWN by Mr. Pagliuca. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Cross-examination | Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines the witness, Carolyn, about her submission to the Epstein Victim Comp... | N/A | View |
| N/A | Deposition/legal proceeding | Questioning of Ms. Maxwell regarding her responsibility for a journal in 2004-2005. | N/A | View |
| N/A | Recess | A break was taken during the proceeding from 4:39 to 4:54. | N/A | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Carolyn during trial proceedings. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Legal examination | Cross-examination of Carolyn by Mr. Pagliuca. | Southern District | 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.
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.
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 regarding Craven article
Discussion about the definition and understanding of 'sexual grooming of children' based on a 2006 article.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Objection during cross-examination
Mr. Pagliuca objects to questioning Dr. Loftus about a single study, arguing it's prejudicial and similar to a previous objection the Court sustained when he tried to cross-examine Dr. Rocchio. The Court questions his intent, and he clarifies he was trying to impeach the witness.
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.
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 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.
Omissions in a legal complaint
Mr. Pagliuca argues that the inconsistencies are factual omissions, citing that paragraph 8 does not include the witness's testimony about penetration and intercourse by Epstein.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity