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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Motion for admission of Exhibit C8 and Exhibit C9 | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn, during which counsel (Mr. Pagliuca) and the judge... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Government Exhibit 297, identified as a layout of the second floor of Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach re... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between an attorney (Mr. Pagliuca) and a judge (THE COURT) regarding the admissibili... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A cross-examination during which Paragraph 27 of a lawsuit was read into the record. | federal court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion during a court proceeding where attorneys Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca argue about the... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion in court regarding the admissibility of message slips as evidence under the business... | Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion between the court and counsel (Ms. Pomerantz) regarding a scope objection to a line ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion between the court and Mr. Pagliuca regarding an inconsistency in the testimony of a ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A court hearing where attorneys and the judge discuss an amendment to a witness's testimony and p... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | The conclusion of a cross-examination of witness Dr. Dubin by Ms. Moe, an objection by Mr. Pagliu... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | The court calls for a ten-minute recess during the cross-examination of Mr. Alessi. A logistical ... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony / cross-examination | An attorney (Mr. Pagliuca) cross-examines a witness (Rocchio) about a study's conclusion that gro... | Court in the Southern District | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A legal argument during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn about the consistency of... | Courtroom in the Southern D... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court about the scheduling of witnesses before bringing in the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by Mr. Pagliuca regarding her relationship and alleg... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A discussion in court about altering the jury deliberation schedule for an ongoing trial. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | A discussion about the scheduling of a trial, specifically the length of the defense case and the... | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Legal proceeding | Government Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 were offered and admitted into evidence under seal. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Direct examination of witness Mrs. Hesse by Ms. Moe in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of a witness named Richards regarding a document marked JR-1. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | Cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding paragraphs 206 an... | N/A | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Direct examination testimony of Dr. Rocchio is being discussed by Mr. Pagliuca and the Court. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), direct examination of wit... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court proceeding | A hearing or trial session where procedural matters are being discussed. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
DOJ-OGR-00017880.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The transcript captures the court resuming session, with the judge addressing the jury and counsel. The government's counsel, Mr. Rohrbach, then calls Paul Kane as the next witness to testify.
DOJ-OGR-00017878.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) involving a legal argument between the prosecution (Mr. Rohrbach) and the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) before a judge. The discussion centers on the admissibility of a 'contact book' versus a 'household manual,' with the government arguing that the contact book belongs to the defendant (Ghislaine Maxwell) and/or Jeffrey Epstein and constitutes statements made in furtherance of a conspiracy. The judge acknowledges the government's argument regarding the hearsay exception.
DOJ-OGR-00017877.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It captures an argument between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Court regarding the admissibility of a 'book' or 'list' (likely an address book) and whether it constitutes hearsay. Pagliuca argues that the government is offering the document to prove the truth of the matter asserted—specifically that the people listed had contact with 'underage females'—rather than for a non-hearsay purpose like notice.
DOJ-OGR-00017876.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal debate over the admissibility of a household manual and a contact book. An attorney, Mr. Rohrbach, argues the items are not being offered for the truth of their contents to avoid hearsay objections, while the opposing counsel, Mr. Pagliuca, counters by raising issues of relevance. The discussion revolves around legal rules of evidence, specifically sections 803(6) and 901.
DOJ-OGR-00017872.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on 08/10/22, documenting proceedings leading up to an adjournment to December 2, 2021. Prosecutor Ms. Comey estimates the government will rest its case in the third week of trial, while defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca anticipates shorter cross-examinations for future witnesses due to less '3500 impeachment material.' The session concludes with the Judge adjourning until the following morning.
DOJ-OGR-00017871.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca, and prosecutors Ms. Comey and Mr. Rohrbach regarding the scheduling of arguments related to 'piercing privilege' and 'waiver' concerning a witness named Jane. The parties also discuss the timeline of the trial, with the government estimating they have about one more week of testimony before resting.
DOJ-OGR-00017870.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) detailing a sidebar conference between the Court, Mr. Pagliuca, and Ms. Sternheim. The discussion centers on the legal procedure for 'piercing the privilege' regarding lawyer witnesses under subpoena. Specifically, the parties are discussing the prosecution's intent to call a witness named Glassman.
DOJ-OGR-00015034.jpg
This document is an 'Index of Examination' page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, associated with Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It outlines the testimony of witness Lisa Rocchio, detailing page numbers for direct examination by Ms. Pomerantz and cross-examination by Mr. Pagliuca. It also lists Government Exhibits 1-5 and Defendant Exhibits A and B introduced during this testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00015031.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on the scientific basis for Rocchio's expert opinions, specifically the studies relied upon and their potential rate of error. Rocchio states he does not rely on a single study and explains that a 'pure error rate' is not typically calculated in social sciences, instead referencing measures like inter-rater reliability.
DOJ-OGR-00015026.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines a witness, Rocchio, about a study the witness relied upon. Pagliuca challenges the study's credibility by pointing out that a key phrase, "right away," is undefined, and Rocchio admits to not having reviewed all the underlying data or cited references in the summary article.
DOJ-OGR-00015022.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It details the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, concerning statistical data on Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) disclosure rates, specifically discussing a study where 50% of participants did not disclose abuse until after age 19. The transcript also captures administrative exchanges regarding exhibit binders and microphone usage between the attorneys (Pomerantz, Rohrbach, Pagliuca) and the Judge.
DOJ-OGR-00015020.jpg
This is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca is cross-examining a witness named Rocchio regarding 'Government Exhibit 6,' a study analyzing delayed reporting of psychological issues. Pagliuca attempts to establish that the current case does not involve allegations of delayed reporting by males, leading to an objection by prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz on the grounds that the witness does not know the specific details of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00015019.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on January 15, 2025. It documents the cross-examination of an expert witness named Rocchio by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding 'Exhibit 6,' a study on barriers to and facilitators of delayed disclosure in abuse cases. The witness defends their opinion as being based on the totality of their professional experience rather than a single article.
DOJ-OGR-00015018.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio regarding a 2016/2017 scientific article about the difficulty of identifying predatory behaviors and child molesters ahead of time. The dialogue includes a debate on 'hindsight bias' in characterizing grooming behaviors and concludes with the admission of Defendant's Exhibit B into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00015015.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on January 15, 2025. It depicts the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding an article written in 2006 by Ms. Craven. The questioning focuses on the academic understanding of the term 'sexual grooming of children,' specifically highlighting a quote stating that the phenomenon is not clearly understood in the public domain.
DOJ-OGR-00015010.jpg
This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. An attorney questions Rocchio about the scientific validity and testing of a sexual grooming model (SGM), referencing the model's authors' calls for more rigorous testing. The attorney also brings up an article by Bennett and O'Donohue to suggest a lack of scientific consensus on the definition of grooming.
DOJ-OGR-00015006.jpg
This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing a cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on the conclusion and methodology of a study. The judge interrupts the proceedings to call for a 30-minute lunch recess and advises the attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, to focus his questioning more on underlying 'Daubert questions' rather than points for a jury to make better use of the court's time.
DOJ-OGR-00015005.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of an expert witness named Rocchio by attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The testimony focuses on 'Exhibit 3,' a scientific study accepted in May 2020, specifically discussing the lack of a universally accepted model for defining behaviors that constitute 'sexual grooming' in child sexual abuse cases. The witness clarifies that this study is just one example of the literature informing their opinion.
DOJ-OGR-00014999.jpg
This document is a partial court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing a cross-examination by Mr. Pagliuca in the case Rocchio - Cross. The discussion centers on an article titled 'Observing Coercive Control Beyond Intimate Partner Violence' and its study, specifically questioning the witness about the 22 unidentified professional participants. The Court intervenes briefly for clarification during the testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00014987.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions a witness, Rocchio, about the existence of a definitive list of vulnerable populations, referencing the DSM 5 and the American Psychological Association. The witness states that while such lists exist in scientific literature, they have not personally written one down but are aware of these populations through their professional training and knowledge.
DOJ-OGR-00014985.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of a cross-examination filed on January 15, 2025. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions a witness named Rocchio about a letter from the government dated April 23, 2021. The questioning establishes and confirms various categories of vulnerable individuals who are often targeted for sexual abuse, including the economically disadvantaged, those without family, and individuals with cognitive or emotional disabilities.
DOJ-OGR-00014977.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Maxwell). It features the cross-examination of an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio, by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Dr. Rocchio's definition of a 'child' (age of consent vs. under 18) and references a prior interview with the government on April 9, 2021, documented in '3500 material' (Jencks Act disclosures).
DOJ-OGR-00014975.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions a witness, Rocchio, about a contract with the government. Rocchio confirms the contract is for up to $45,000 at a rate of $450 per hour, but clarifies that they have not yet been paid because an invoice has not been submitted.
DOJ-OGR-00014974.jpg
This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge. Mr. Pagliuca argues that under Rule 16, he should be able to examine all materials a witness, Dr. Rocchio, used to prepare her testimony. The judge challenges this broad interpretation, clarifying that only materials that form the actual basis of her opinion, not discarded notes or unrelated contracts, are relevant.
DOJ-OGR-00014973.jpg
Transcript page from the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Maxwell). The witness confirms possession of his engagement agreement and time logs, prompting defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca to request immediate production of the file. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz responds that the government has already fulfilled its Jencks Act obligations by producing notes from meetings and calls with the witness.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Direct Examination / Exhibit Admission
Mr. Pagliuca resumes direct examination of Dr. Dubin and offers Exhibit 662-RR into evidence.
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.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding observations of inappropriate conduct between Epstein and teenage females.
Witness Preclusion
Clarifying that Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards are precluded so they can be released.
Adherence to household manual
Questioning regarding whether Alessi followed a specific manual and knowledge of 'the countess'.
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.
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.
Admissibility and Procedural Status
Discussion regarding not admitting a specific item and determining where questioning left off (around '33') to be handled at sidebar.
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.
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 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.
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.
Relevance of Dr. Rocchio's testimony
Discussion regarding 'grooming the environment,' perpetrator deception, and hindsight bias effect.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity