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-00018918.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). A witness named Shawn testifies that he accompanied a 16-year-old girl named Carolyn to Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach house multiple times. He states that she would go inside alone for an hour and emerge with hundred-dollar bills, and admits they were using drugs during this period.
DOJ-OGR-00018917.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Shawn by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Shawn identifies individuals in a photograph from Melissa's 16th birthday and testifies about visiting Jeffrey Epstein's house multiple times with Melissa, and on one occasion with Carolyn. He also states that Melissa went inside the house with another individual named Amanda.
DOJ-OGR-00018916.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case dated August 10, 2022, where a witness named Shawn is under direct examination. Shawn identifies Government Exhibit 105 as a photograph from Melissa's 16th birthday, which he attended, and names Carolyn, Melissa, and Candace as being in the picture. Following a request from attorney Ms. Comey to protect privacy, the court admits the exhibit into evidence under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00018915.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Shawn by Ms. Comey. The testimony focuses on a girl named Melissa, who was 16 years old when she visited Jeffrey Epstein's house accompanied by a woman named Carolyn. The witness states that after being inside for an hour, Melissa and Carolyn emerged carrying money.
DOJ-OGR-00018911.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Shawn. The witness identifies three women—Melissa, Amanda Lazlo, and Carolyn—as former girlfriends he dated simultaneously. Crucially, the witness testifies that the first time he saw Amanda Lazlo go to Jeffrey Epstein's house, she was approximately 15 or 16 years old.
DOJ-OGR-00018905.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Shawn by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Shawn testifies about receiving phone calls from three women—one named Sarah, one with an English accent, and one with a French-sounding accent. The purpose of these calls was to convey a message that a person named Jeffrey was requesting someone named Carolyn to work.
DOJ-OGR-00018902.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Shawn. The witness identifies the location of Jeffrey Epstein's house as El Brillo Way on Palm Beach Island and contrasts the affluence of Palm Beach with West Palm Beach, where they lived. The witness explains they rarely visited Palm Beach because they lacked money.
DOJ-OGR-00018861.jpg
This document is an index of examinations from a court transcript for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. It outlines the direct, cross, redirect, and recross examinations of witnesses Kimberly Meder, Stephen Flatley, and Carolyn by various attorneys. The index also lists several government exhibits that were received during the proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00018860.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, the judge admonishes the attorneys to provide a specific rule of evidence when making objections, rather than using one-word grounds, to prevent improper communication with the jury or witnesses. After confirming no further business is expected for the evening, the court is adjourned until 8:45 a.m. on December 8, 2021.
DOJ-OGR-00018859.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. An unidentified attorney argues for the record that certain materials are not privileged, citing three reasons: no communication was required, potential disclosure to the government would waive privilege, and the intent to communicate to a third party negates privilege from the start. The judge acknowledges the argument but states that the court had already sustained an objection based on privilege.
DOJ-OGR-00018857.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys and the judge. The primary topic is the status of witnesses, with the government (represented by Ms. Moe) seeking confirmation that the defense will not recall a witness named Jane, following the completed testimony of Matt and the withdrawal of Brian. The defense (represented by Ms. Menninger) requests time to consider, and the judge instructs them to confer and address the issue the next day.
DOJ-OGR-00018852.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details the recross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding a sum of $446,000 she received in 2009 and whether it was depleted by 2012. Following the questioning, the witness is excused, and the court adjourns for the day.
DOJ-OGR-00018849.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) covering the redirect examination of a witness named Carolyn. During this segment, defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca finishes his questioning regarding a photo exhibit (C10), after which prosecutor Ms. Comey questions Carolyn about the authorship of her civil complaint and her application to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund, to which Carolyn admits she did not write them herself. The page concludes with a question regarding an FBI interview report.
DOJ-OGR-00018846.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on a $2,804,000 compensation payment Carolyn received, from which $446,000 was subtracted for prior claims against Mr. Epstein and Ms. Kellen. The transcript also shows the judge sustaining an objection to one of Carolyn's answers and Mr. Pagliuca confirming her understanding that submitting false information could lead to forfeiture of the compensation money.
DOJ-OGR-00018845.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning focuses on discrepancies between lawsuits she filed against Epstein and Kellen in 2008-2009 and a subsequent claim she made to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. Carolyn denies adding a 'Ms. Maxwell' to her fund request and, after her memory is refreshed, clarifies she was awarded $2,804,000, not the suggested amounts of $3.25 million or $3.9 million.
DOJ-OGR-00018844.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Carolyn's submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund, highlighting the claimed start date of abuse as May 1, 2001, and questioning whether she added new, specific claims of sexual abuse, which Carolyn vehemently denies as a 'lie'.
DOJ-OGR-00018843.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examines a witness named Carolyn regarding her application to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund submitted on October 14, 2020. The questioning highlights that this submission occurred while she was meeting with the government and distinguishes this claim from her separate lawsuits against Epstein and Kellen.
DOJ-OGR-00018842.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examining a witness named Carolyn. The questioning centers on Carolyn's meetings with the government in 2020, which she attended with Mr. Scarola and other lawyers, and their potential connection to her submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. Carolyn consistently responds that she cannot recall the details of these meetings.
DOJ-OGR-00018841.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning, led by attorney Mr. Pagliuca, focuses on emails sent on Carolyn's behalf by her agent, Mr. Scarola, to the government in July 2020, prior to her interviews. The transcript captures objections from another attorney, Ms. Comey, and rulings from the judge regarding potentially privileged communications between the witness and her representative.
DOJ-OGR-00018840.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Carolyn in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Pagliuca questions the witness about the timing of her cooperation with the government, specifically attempting to link her first response in July 2020 to the opening of the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund in June 2020. The witness denies knowing about the fund opening date but confirms responding through her attorneys, Mr. Danchuk and Mr. Scarola.
DOJ-OGR-00018836.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on establishing that in previous interactions—including 2007 FBI interviews, two lawsuits involving Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen, and a 2009 deposition—the witness never mentioned Ghislaine Maxwell. The attorney also attempts to refresh the witness's memory regarding a government meeting in Florida in 2007 with a Ms. Villaflana, whom the witness does not recall.
DOJ-OGR-00018832.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examining a witness, Carolyn. Mr. Pagliuca reads from prior testimony, questioning Carolyn about whether she had sexual intercourse with a Mr. Epstein. The witness's read testimony denies any sexual intercourse, and the exchange is interrupted by an objection from another attorney, Ms. Comey, and a correction from the judge stating that Mr. Pagliuca misread the testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018831.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing attorney Mr. Pagliuca cross-examining a witness named Carolyn. The questioning centers on a previous statement where the witness denied having sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein. The witness clarifies her answer, stating she replied 'no' because she was not a willing participant and that he had intercourse with her, which she stopped.
DOJ-OGR-00018830.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Ghislaine Maxwell trial) documenting the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The defense attorney (Mr. Pagliuca) questions the witness about her 2009 testimony regarding drug use (cocaine) at Jeffrey Epstein's house, specifically establishing that Epstein did not instruct her to use drugs. The questioning then pivots to her claim of having sexual intercourse with Epstein before being interrupted by an objection from Ms. Comey.
DOJ-OGR-00018828.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a procedural discussion during a trial. Attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey debate with the judge which portions of a prior testimony should be read to a witness to refresh their memory. The specific testimony in question involves the witness being asked about doing cocaine at Mr. Epstein's house.
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.
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 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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
Relevance of Dr. Rocchio's testimony
Discussion regarding 'grooming the environment,' perpetrator deception, and hindsight bias effect.
Discrepancies in Epstein Victim Compensation Fund submission
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about the start date of alleged abuse (May 1, 2001) and additional claims of specific sexual acts in her submission to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund, which she denies making.
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 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.
Witness Preclusion
Clarifying that Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards are precluded so they can be released.
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.
Direct Examination / Exhibit Admission
Mr. Pagliuca resumes direct examination of Dr. Dubin and offers Exhibit 662-RR into evidence.
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.
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.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding observations of inappropriate conduct between Epstein and teenage females.
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.
Witness Anonymity and Courtroom Logistics
Discussion regarding how to handle document display screens to prevent public disclosure of anonymous witness identities while maintaining efficiency.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity