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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-01-15 | Direct examination | Direct examination of Dr. Rocchio in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-22 | N/A | Court filing date of the transcript document. | Southern District of New York | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing (filing date) regarding the admissibility of evidence (contact book vs household ma... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Admission of Exhibit 662-RR | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of Dr. Dubin resumes in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Alessi in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell... | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court hearing | Cross-examination of witness Carolyn in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Direct examination of Dr. Dubin in Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding: Cross-examination of witness Carolyn. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceeding/hearing, likely a cross-examination involving 'Carolyn'. Discussion includes fou... | Court (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN) involving cross-examination of witness Dubin. | Southern District (implied NY) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Filing date of the court transcript document. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court Recess | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Swearing in of witness Dr. Eva Dubin | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court testimony regarding Government Exhibit 15 (GX-15) | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing regarding opening statements and admissibility of arguments about witness coaching. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing date for the transcript document. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Sidebar conference regarding a procedural error during the cross-examination of witness Alessi. | Courtroom (Sidebar) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court filing date of the transcript document (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court proceedings in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (US v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Discussion regarding witne... | Southern District Court | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Cross-examination of Mr. Alessi | Courtroom (Case 1:20-cr-003... | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Legal argument regarding the scope of cross-examination for witness Carolyn. | Courtroom | View |
| 2022-08-10 | N/A | Court hearing involving the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| 2022-08-10 | Court testimony | Direct examination of witness Shawn in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. | Courtroom (implied) | 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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
Cross-examination duration
Estimating cross-examination will take an hour to an hour and a half.
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.
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.
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.
Witness Testimony vs Stipulation
Discussion regarding whether to use a live witness or a stipulation for a 302 report.
Scope of Cross-Examination
Argument regarding the admissibility of questions about memory, confabulation, and alcohol effects during cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio.
New Witness Disclosure
Discussion of newly disclosed witness William Brown.
Admissibility and Procedural Status
Discussion regarding not admitting a specific item and determining where questioning left off (around '33') to be handled at sidebar.
Document presentation logistics
Discussion regarding the use of electronic screens versus paper for showing documents to refresh recollection while protecting anonymity.
Direct Examination / Exhibit Admission
Mr. Pagliuca resumes direct examination of Dr. Dubin and offers Exhibit 662-RR into evidence.
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.
Expert Witness Testimony
Pagliuca argues it is unlikely experts LaPorte and Naso will testify.
Witness Anonymity and Courtroom Logistics
Discussion regarding how to handle document display screens to prevent public disclosure of anonymous witness identities while maintaining efficiency.
Relevance of Dr. Rocchio's testimony
Discussion regarding 'grooming the environment,' perpetrator deception, and hindsight bias effect.
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.
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 prior statements and drug use.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity