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-00014971.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. It captures the beginning of a cross-examination where counsel Mr. Pagliuca questions a witness, Dr. Rocchio, about the frequency of his meetings with the government. Dr. Rocchio acknowledges that he may have had around 14 contacts with the government in the past year, clarifying that this number would include telephone calls for scheduling.
DOJ-OGR-00014934.jpg
This page is a transcript from the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The government moves to admit 'Government Exhibit 5,' an article written by Park Dietz, which is accepted without objection. Dr. Rocchio explains that he provided this article to the government to clarify the concepts of 'grooming' and 'seduction' as established patterns in sexual abuse dynamics, noting specifically how older literature often used terminology that victim-blamed.
DOJ-OGR-00014924.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on January 15, 2025. An attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, questions a witness, Dr. Rocchio, about a peer-reviewed study published in October 2020 concerning the behaviors of perpetrators. Dr. Rocchio explains that the study involved a comprehensive literature review to identify common behavioral stages and strategies.
DOJ-OGR-00014920.jpg
This document is page 44 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. It features the direct testimony of an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio, discussing methods of substantiating abuse cases, including legal convictions and medical evidence (specifically gonorrhea in children). During the testimony, the government introduces 'Government Exhibit 2,' an article regarding 'coercive control' authored by Jacquelynn Duron, Laura Johnson, Gretchen Hoge, and Judy Postmus, which is admitted into evidence without objection from the defense attorney, Mr. Pagliuca.
DOJ-OGR-00014896.jpg
This page is a transcript from a court proceeding (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on 01/15/25. It features the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz regarding the witness's academic credentials at Brown University and their expertise in traumatic stress and childhood trauma. During the testimony, Government Exhibit 1 is admitted into evidence without objection from the defense attorney, Mr. Pagliuca.
DOJ-OGR-00008352.jpg
This court transcript from a pretrial conference on December 10, 2021, documents several procedural discussions. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, successfully requests a limited exclusion from Rule 615 to allow his witnesses (Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus) to review another witness's (Dr. Rocchio's) testimony. The court also establishes a deadline for the government to provide its witness list and confirms with both the prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Ms. Sternheim) that no plea offers have been communicated.
DOJ-OGR-00008328.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 10, 2021. It details a discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Moe), the defense (Mr. Pagliuca), and the Judge regarding the physical inspection of evidence that occurred on November 1st. The Judge instructs the government not to mention specific evidence with uncertain admissibility in their opening statement and transitions the proceedings to discuss the admissibility of co-conspirator statements.
DOJ-OGR-00008327.jpg
This court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on December 10, 2021, documents a pretrial discussion. The judge rules on the process for determining the admissibility of testimony and orders the government to make a document exhibit available for defense inspection, after which the attorneys confirm the inspection already occurred on November 1st and that the original exhibit will be present at trial.
DOJ-OGR-00008325.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Dec 10, 2021) detailing a discussion between the Judge and attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The Judge instructs the attorney to prioritize using physical binders for cross-examination exhibits rather than relying solely on digital screens, though exceptions are allowed. The document is stamped with a Department of Justice identifier.
DOJ-OGR-00008324.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on December 10, 2021. It captures a dialogue between the judge and an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, concerning the practical methods for presenting documentary evidence during a trial. The judge suggests preparing a binder of potential exhibits, while the attorney expresses concern, leading to a discussion about the role of a paralegal in displaying documents on a monitor during cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00008320.jpg
This document is a court transcript from December 10, 2021, detailing a pre-trial hearing. The judge notes that the government failed to include a financial institution on a list of entities to be mentioned at trial. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, then raises a procedural issue, proposing that any impeachment or refreshing of a witness's recollection be handled electronically.
DOJ-OGR-00008316.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2021. In it, an attorney, Ms. Comey, informs the court that the defense has subpoenaed the attorney for 'Minor Victim 4' to testify at the trial. Ms. Comey argues that any such testimony would likely be protected by attorney-client privilege and asks the court to preclude it.
DOJ-OGR-00008314.jpg
A transcript page from a court hearing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 10, 2021. Ms. Comey (Government) argues that certain past offenses, such as juvenile curfew violations and old misdemeanors, should not be grounds for cross-examination. Mr. Pagliuca (Defense) argues that the government's list includes items within the rules. The Judge intervenes, instructing the attorneys to have a 'mature, reasonable discussion' to reach an agreement and to submit any remaining good-faith disputes in writing for judicial resolution.
DOJ-OGR-00008300.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript dated December 9, 2021, detailing the questioning of G. Maxwell. After a brief recess, Maxwell is asked about her responsibility for a journal in 2004-2005, to which her attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects. Maxwell then states she does not know the author or contents of the document being presented.
DOJ-OGR-00008299.jpg
Page 326 of a deposition transcript involving Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell is questioned about a specific redacted female name appearing on a list under 'Florida massages.' Maxwell identifies the woman as a friend of Jeffrey Epstein rather than a masseuse, attributing her placement on the list to an 'input error,' and denies knowledge regarding whether the list represented individuals who had sex with Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00008298.jpg
This document is page 325 of a confidential deposition transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell describes the logistics of scheduling massages for 'him' (implied Epstein) based on availability. The interrogator asks if Maxwell would be surprised to learn that the Federal Government found girls on the 'massage Florida' list were under the age of 18, to which Maxwell responds that she has no knowledge of the government's findings.
DOJ-OGR-00008297.jpg
This document is a page from a legal deposition transcript related to the case of G. Maxwell, filed on December 9, 2021. An unidentified witness is questioned about why Jeffrey Epstein had a large number of masseuses listed in Florida. The witness states they cannot explain the number of names but confirms that Epstein received a massage almost daily from a single masseuse at random times, implying a need for multiple available practitioners.
DOJ-OGR-00008296.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed in court on December 9, 2021. Maxwell is being questioned about a 'book' (likely a contact book) belonging to Jeffrey Epstein, specifically regarding a large list of masseuses located in Florida. Maxwell claims the specific version of the book presented was created after her 'departure' and states she does not know the qualifications of the people listed, while her attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, repeatedly objects to the line of questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00008295.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript of G. Maxwell's testimony, filed on December 9, 2021. During questioning, Maxwell confirms she worked for someone named Jeffrey and is then asked about a 'Florida massage list'. She denies knowing the people on the list or their ages, and her attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to one of the questions.
DOJ-OGR-00008294.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript where a witness, identified as G. Maxwell, is questioned about a phone number in a document under the heading 'Massage Florida'. The questioner suggests Maxwell provided the number of a woman whom 'Jeffrey' had hired after Maxwell introduced them. Maxwell denies bringing the woman to Jeffrey and claims to have no knowledge of how the phone number was recorded.
DOJ-OGR-00008293.jpg
This document is a page from a legal deposition transcript filed on December 9, 2021. An unidentified witness is being questioned about a document they may have used while working with an individual named Jeffrey. The witness denies responsibility for data entry, specifically regarding a section labeled 'Massage Florida', and states they cannot recall if numbers were added after their departure. The witness's attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the line of questioning, claiming it mischaracterizes prior testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00008292.jpg
This page is a transcript from a deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell (filed in court on Dec 9, 2021). Maxwell is being questioned about a specific document bearing the Bates label 'Giuffre 001663' which contains a section titled 'Massage Florida.' Maxwell denies recollection of the document being on her computer, denies creating it, and claims not to know who did create it. Her attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to the line of questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00008291.jpg
This is a page from a deposition transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell (filed Dec 9, 2021). Maxwell is being questioned about a specific document containing contact information that a redacted individual turned over to the FBI, claiming it came from her computer. Maxwell denies recollection of the document and states she was not responsible for updating or keeping records of individuals Jeffrey Epstein hired.
DOJ-OGR-00008289.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript, filed on December 9, 2021, detailing the questioning of an unidentified witness about their time working for Jeffrey Epstein. The witness is asked about the existence of a hard copy document with contact numbers, but repeatedly refers to the document being presented as 'stolen'. The witness's attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to a question based on 'form and foundation'.
DOJ-OGR-00008288.jpg
This document is a page from a deposition transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell, filed in December 2021. Maxwell is questioned about her role in maintaining contact information for Jeffrey Epstein, confirming that she would pass numbers to an assistant to enter into a computer. The questioning attorney also asks specifically about the existence of a 'hardcopy book' relevant to Epstein's life, likely referring to the infamous 'Black Book,' though the answer is cut off by an objection and the end of the page.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Application to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund
Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines the witness, Carolyn, about the date she submitted her application to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund, using Exhibit C6 to establish the date as October 14, 2020. He also distinguishes this submission from her lawsuits against Epstein and Kellen.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Acknowledgment of ruling
Mr. Pagliuca thanks the judge after the ruling is made.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity