MR. PAGLIUCA
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Counsel
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Professional representation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Carolyn
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Rocchio
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Hesse
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Hesse
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Shawn
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Nicole Hesse
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
EVA ADNERSSON DUBIN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unknown Judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Questioner (Q)
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Witness (A)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Witness (unnamed)
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed doctor
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The Court, The Witness (Carolyn)
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 |
| 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-00018826.jpg
This document is a page from the cross-examination transcript of a witness named Carolyn in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness about alleged cocaine use at Jeffrey Epstein's house, which she denies. The witness spontaneously interjects that Epstein told her not to take drugs, prompting an objection from Ms. Comey and an admonishment from the Court to wait for rulings on objections.
DOJ-OGR-00018825.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 Carolyn's past, including her alleged drug use between 2001-2003, her move from Florida to Georgia, and her prior testimony regarding claims of having sex with a Mr. Epstein. Carolyn denies moving to detox from cocaine, stating she left Florida to escape traumatic events.
DOJ-OGR-00018824.jpg
This document is a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning centers on a deposition from October 21, 2009, which Carolyn denies ever having seen. During the exchange, Carolyn also states that she has never taken a hallucinogenic drug.
DOJ-OGR-00018823.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on a prior deposition from 2009 and an incident involving the alleged ingestion of 'angel trumpets' (a flower) while visiting Jeffrey Epstein's house, which the witness denies ingesting. Ms. Comey objects to a line of questioning regarding prior testimony, which is sustained by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00018821.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Maxwell) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on an intake interview from September 2005 and a signed document from October 2005, specifically regarding the witness's reported use of benzodiazepines. The witness repeatedly challenges the attorney on the relevance of these 2005 documents to the 2002-2003 timeframe originally being discussed.
DOJ-OGR-00018820.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022. It captures the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Carolyn's history of substance use, including taking Xanax for anxiety, drinking and smoking marijuana at age 13, and using benzodiazepines frequently between 2002 and 2003.
DOJ-OGR-00018819.jpg
This page is a transcript from the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial). Attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions Carolyn about alleged substance abuse during the 2002-2003 timeframe and at age 13. Carolyn denies abusing multiple substances in the 2002-2003 timeframe but admits to smoking marijuana at age 13.
DOJ-OGR-00018818.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. Mr. Pagliuca attempts to direct Carolyn to specific passages in a prior deposition, leading to procedural clarifications from the judge and an objection from another attorney, Ms. Comey. The transcript captures the formal and often disjointed process of presenting evidence in a legal setting.
DOJ-OGR-00018817.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a moment after a recess where the judge and attorneys prepare for a witness, and the judge then addresses the jury to apologize for a delay and inform them of upcoming scheduling changes, including days off due to a personal conflict and the Christmas holiday.
DOJ-OGR-00018816.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a discussion about a witness's amended testimony. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, highlights that the witness later added they were transported in a private car provided by Jeffrey Epstein, arguing this change in memory is significant. The judge acknowledges the inconsistency, after which other attorneys discuss procedural matters like taking a break and the time remaining for cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00018815.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. The text captures a legal debate between attorneys Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca before the Judge regarding the admissibility of specific testimony or evidence (items 20 and 21). The discussion focuses on whether seeing a female naked in a massage room before Jeffrey Epstein entered constitutes 'lewd and lascivious conduct' or mere nudity.
DOJ-OGR-00018814.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between attorneys Mr. Pagliuca, Ms. Comey, and the judge. They are debating inconsistencies in the testimony of a witness named Carolyn, specifically regarding the timeframe of payments she allegedly received from Mr. Epstein and whether her testimony described sexual contact or merely being seen naked in a massage room. The judge ultimately suggests checking the official transcript to resolve the dispute.
DOJ-OGR-00018813.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge. They are discussing the admissibility of specific questions (16 and 17) to be asked during a cross-examination, which concern visits to Mr. Epstein's home and any financial compensation received. The judge sustains an objection but ultimately indicates a willingness to allow the questions for a person identified as Ms. Comey.
DOJ-OGR-00018812.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, details a legal argument between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the judge during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Mr. Pagliuca attempts to introduce paragraphs 207 and 208 regarding Sarah Kellen as impeachment evidence, but the Court sustains the objection. The judge rules the paragraphs inadmissible, distinguishing them from prior evidence because they do not mention Ms. Maxwell or other unnamed employees.
DOJ-OGR-00018811.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey before a judge. The discussion centers on whether a complaint's allegations are limited to a period ending in August 2003, which Mr. Pagliuca asserts is inconsistent with testimony. Ms. Comey counters that the complaint is consistent and suggests how to question the witness, Carolyn, on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00018809.jpg
This document is a court transcript page from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural discussion between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The judge sustains a series of objections from Mr. Pagliuca related to specific numbered paragraphs (57, 63, 69, 75, 81, 87, 93) of testimony or evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00018806.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument between Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, presided over by a judge. The discussion centers on whether a witness's testimony about the frequency of an act (up to four times a week) is inconsistent with a complaint stating it occurred twice a month. The attorneys debate the significance of the time frame and the conflicting frequencies mentioned in the testimony versus the complaint.
DOJ-OGR-00018805.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a legal argument between two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, before a judge. Ms. Comey defends a legal complaint against claims of inconsistency with a witness's testimony, particularly regarding the omission of certain details about 'sex acts'. The judge ultimately rules on the matter related to 'paragraph 39', sustaining an objection by finding a testified detail to be significant.
DOJ-OGR-00018804.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, involving the cross-examination regarding a witness named Carolyn. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Court about inconsistencies in testimony regarding incidents in July 2002, specifically noting a lack of allegations regarding sexual penetration versus fondling. The Judge clarifies which paragraph of the legal document is being discussed (moving from 33 to 39) before turning to prosecutor Ms. Comey.
DOJ-OGR-00018803.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge. They are discussing the consistency of testimony from a witness named Carolyn, specifically focusing on a discrepancy in the date of an incident. The judge points out that a complaint states the incident occurred in 2002, while Carolyn's testimony places it in 2001.
DOJ-OGR-00018802.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, capturing a dialogue between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the court. Mr. Pagliuca is arguing to impeach a witness's testimony by highlighting a chronological inconsistency regarding the start date of alleged incidents, claiming they occurred from 2002-2003 rather than starting in 2001 as stated in the indictment and the witness's direct testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018801.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, involving the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca discusses procedural matters with the Judge (The Court), specifically agreeing not to admit a certain item and mentioning a sidebar discussion needed to address where they left off.
DOJ-OGR-00018800.jpg
This document is page 202 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 attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge regarding the admissibility of specific paragraphs describing Jeffrey Epstein's 'systematic pattern of sexually exploited behavior' utilizing a network of employees. The Judge sustains an objection regarding paragraph 206, ruling it is not inconsistent with testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00018796.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, involving the cross-examination context of a witness named Carolyn. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Court that there are factual omissions in the complaint compared to the witness's live testimony, specifically noting that the witness testified to 'penetration and intercourse by Epstein,' which was not included in Paragraph 8 of the complaint. The Judge questions Pagliuca on his theory of inconsistency versus omission and prepares to hear from prosecutor Ms. Comey.
DOJ-OGR-00018794.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 held without the jury present between defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding the admissibility of a 'state complaint' (Exhibit C4). The defense argues that the complaint should be admitted to show that the defendant, Ms. Maxwell, was not mentioned in it, while the prosecution objects on the grounds that this fact is not inconsistent with the witness's testimony.
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.
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 regarding Craven article
Discussion about the definition and understanding of 'sexual grooming of children' based on a 2006 article.
Cross-examination duration
Estimating cross-examination will take an hour to an hour and a half.
Unknown
The Court mentions giving a note to Mr. Pagliuca.
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 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 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.
Admissibility of cross-examination question
Discussion regarding a question about 'hindsight bias phenomena' and whether it is within the scope of direct examination.
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.
Confirmation of past events and prior legal complaints
Questioning regarding paragraph 33 of a 2009 complaint and the details of a sexual encounter with Epstein.
Document presentation logistics
Discussion regarding the use of electronic screens versus paper for showing documents to refresh recollection while protecting anonymity.
Objection to Exhibits
Objection to exhibits 2C through 2W because they were not written by Mr. Alessi or his wife and are not authenticated.
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.
Admissibility of Exhibit 52
Discussion regarding whether the entirety of Exhibit 52 or just photocopies of specific pages should be admitted to the jury.
Admissibility of evidence paragraphs
Argument regarding whether specific paragraphs (12 and 206) are factually inconsistent with testimony.
Procedural discussion on evidence presentation
Discussion regarding the use of physical binders versus electronic screens for presenting documents to witnesses and the government during trial.
Cross Examination
Questioning regarding prior statements and drug use.
Request to approach bench
Your Honor, may we approach?
Scheduling and Privilege Waiver
Discussion regarding when to address the waiver theory concerning 'Jane', scheduling for Friday vs Monday, and the timeline for the government to rest its case.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity