THE COURT
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00017990.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Mr. Alessi. The witness confirms that Government Exhibit 297 is an accurate layout of the second floor of Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach residence. Following this testimony and with no objection, the court admits the exhibit into evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017987.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. The witness describes the interior layout of a property, specifically the front entrance, foyer, and the 'lake room' (living room), noting the location of Mr. Epstein's desk, stereo equipment, and books.
DOJ-OGR-00017986.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the afternoon session of a trial on August 10, 2022. It details the resumption of the direct examination of witness Juan Patricio Alessi by Ms. Comey. The testimony focuses on Government Exhibit 298, specifically identifying a room labeled 'foyer' using a touch screen.
DOJ-OGR-00017985.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The judge dismisses the jury for a 45-minute luncheon recess and provides procedural instructions to the counsel, Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, regarding the use of a touch screen for the official record.
DOJ-OGR-00017979.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Direct Examination of witness Alessi) filed on August 10, 2022, in the case US v. Maxwell. The witness, Mr. Alessi, testifies that he met Ghislaine Maxwell around 1991 while working for Jeffrey Epstein and interacted with her on a daily basis until he left in 2002. During the proceeding, Alessi identifies Maxwell in the courtroom, noting she is wearing a black sweater.
DOJ-OGR-00017970.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. During a cross-examination, a witness confirms that a study concluded it is not possible to prospectively or reliably predict 'grooming behavior'. After the witness's confirmation, the questioning attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, concludes his examination.
DOJ-OGR-00017963.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio. The questioning concerns literature on child sexual abuse, leading to objections from attorneys Ms. Pomerantz and Mr. Pagliuca regarding the use of the term 'perpetrator' and the scope of the witness's answer. The court overrules these objections and directs the witness to continue.
DOJ-OGR-00017962.jpg
This document is page 89 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. It features the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio regarding psychological concepts including confabulation, delayed disclosure, secondary gain, and malingering. Ms. Pomerantz repeatedly objects to the questioning, and the Court sustains most objections.
DOJ-OGR-00017961.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio, where the defense asks about the impact of traumatic brain injury, alcohol, and controlled substances on memory recall and the concept of 'confabulation.' Ms. Pomerantz (prosecution) successfully objects to several questions regarding memory and abuse disclosure, but an objection regarding the definition of confabulation is overruled.
DOJ-OGR-00017956.jpg
Court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The excerpt captures a procedural discussion between attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Pomerantz regarding a binder of materials (including Daubert hearing testimony and '3500 material') for witness Dr. Rocchio. Following the discussion, the jury enters, and Mr. Pagliuca begins his cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio.
DOJ-OGR-00017955.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on August 10, 2022. In it, an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, discusses his intention to use a specific study from John Jay College during cross-examination. The study concluded that certain factors cannot be used to prospectively predict grooming behavior, and Mr. Pagliuca receives permission from the Court to question a witness on these findings.
DOJ-OGR-00017953.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 between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge regarding the admissibility of a question about 'hindsight bias phenomena' and victim blaming. The Judge rules that the proposed question is 'beyond the scope' of the direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00017952.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It features a dialogue between Mr. Pagliuca and the Court regarding the testimony of Dr. Rocchio, specifically discussing the concept of 'grooming the environment,' perpetrator deception, and 'hindsight bias.' The attorney argues that this testimony is appropriate to explain how a perpetrator deceives those around them.
DOJ-OGR-00017951.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, discusses the testimony of Dr. Rocchio. He focuses on the concept of "grooming the environment" and references an article she wrote, "Stages of Sexual Grooming," intending to question her about "hindsight bias phenomena." The Court interrupts to question whether the contents of the entire article are within the scope of the direct examination.
DOJ-OGR-00017950.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the presiding judge. They discuss the permissible scope of cross-examination, with the judge warning against introducing new, undisclosed expert testimony. The judge references a prior Daubert hearing and instructs another attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, to object if the rules are violated.
DOJ-OGR-00017949.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a discussion between THE COURT and MS. POMERANTZ regarding the scope of expert testimony and cross-examination. The conversation centers on whether to cross-examine Dr. Rocchio on certain opinions and the Court's qualification of another expert to provide opinions on delayed disclosure in sexual abuse cases. The Court sets boundaries for cross-examination, emphasizing that it will not permit the introduction of undisclosed expert opinions.
DOJ-OGR-00017948.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge (THE COURT) and a lawyer (MS. POMERANTZ). Ms. Pomerantz raises a concern about the scope of questioning by another lawyer, Mr. Pagliuca, regarding a witness's testimony on the delayed disclosure of sexual abuse. The discussion centers on defining the line between permissible cross-examination and improperly soliciting expert opinions.
DOJ-OGR-00017946.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal argument between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge regarding the permissible scope of cross-examination for a psychology expert witness. The discussion focuses on the concept of 'delayed disclosure' in sexual abuse cases and whether the defense can question the expert about alternative reasons for such delays beyond what was presented in direct testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00017945.jpg
This document is page 72 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 Ms. Pomerantz and Mr. Pagliuca before the Judge regarding the scope of cross-examination for an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio. The defense (Pagliuca) argues that topics such as confabulation, the process of storing memories, and the effect of alcohol on memory are relevant to explaining delayed disclosure.
DOJ-OGR-00017944.jpg
A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. The dialogue involves a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Prosecutor Pomerantz, and Defense Attorney Pagliuca regarding a misunderstanding of a court order, followed by a recess. After the recess, Ms. Pomerantz raises an issue regarding Mr. Pagliuca's intent to cross-examine expert witness Dr. Rocchio on topics outside her direct testimony, specifically mentioning the 'halo effect' and 'suggestive memory'.
DOJ-OGR-00017943.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between attorneys (Ms. Pomerantz, Mr. Pagliuca) and the judge regarding a question posed to a witness, Dr. Rocchio. The judge clarifies why a specific question about grooming and sexual gratification was objected to and ultimately precluded, citing the narrow basis for excluding testimony on the theory of 'grooming by proxy'.
DOJ-OGR-00017941.jpg
This page is a transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It details a legal argument between attorney Ms. Pomerantz and the Judge regarding the admissibility of questions related to 'grooming' and 'sexual gratification.' The Judge references a 'Daubert context' (expert witness admissibility) and compares the testimony to a 'pimp-prostitute context.'
DOJ-OGR-00017940.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, and the judge ('THE COURT') after the jury has been excused for a break. Ms. Pomerantz seeks to clarify the record regarding the scope of Dr. Rocchio's testimony, stating the government's understanding that his opinion on the presence of a third party was excluded, and distinguishing this from the defense's theory of 'grooming by proxy'.
DOJ-OGR-00017935.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It details the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, who discusses the commonality of delayed disclosure of sexual abuse in clinical and forensic practices. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, objects to a question regarding the witness being the first person patients disclose abuse to, but the objection is overruled by the Court.
DOJ-OGR-00017928.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz, regarding the factors that place a child at increased risk of sexual abuse. The judge sustains an objection and strikes a portion of the testimony before Dr. Rocchio begins to detail personal risk factors such as prior victimization, health issues, and disadvantaged circumstances.
| Date | Type | From | To | Amount | Description | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $750,000.00 | Total fine imposed. | View |
| N/A | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $250,000.00 | Fine imposed on each count. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $9,500,000.00 | Value of real property offered as collateral. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | security company | THE COURT | $1,000,000.00 | Bond co-signed by a security company. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $550,000.00 | Cash offered as collateral. | View |
| 2021-03-23 | Received | Ghislaine Maxwell... | THE COURT | $28,500,000.00 | Proposed total bond amount. | View |
| 2020-12-14 | Received | Sureties (Family/... | THE COURT | $0.00 | Meaningful pledges of cash or property in amoun... | View |
| 2020-07-13 | Received | Unidentified co-s... | THE COURT | $5,000,000.00 | Proposed bond amount by the defense, which the ... | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Co-signers (Sibli... | THE COURT | $5,000,000.00 | Proposed bond amount to secure Maxwell's appear... | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Defense/Co-signers | THE COURT | $3,750,000.00 | Value of real property in the United Kingdom of... | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Co-signers (Sibli... | THE COURT | $5,000,000.00 | Proposed bond amount to secure appearance. | View |
| 2020-07-10 | Received | Ms. Maxwell / Ass... | THE COURT | $3,750,000.00 | Value of real property in the United Kingdom us... | View |
| 2020-01-01 | Received | GHISLAINE MAXWELL | THE COURT | $22,500,000.00 | Proposed bond amount representing all of the co... | View |
| 2019-07-18 | Received | MR. EPSTEIN | THE COURT | $0.00 | Defense offer to put up 'any amount' of collate... | View |
| 2019-07-11 | Received | Jeffrey Epstein | THE COURT | $77,000,000.00 | Valuation of Manhattan residence to be mortgage... | View |
| 2010-07-01 | Received | Epstein's counsel | THE COURT | $5,000.00 | Proposed sanction fine for discovery violations. | View |
Remote Testimony / Rule 15
Discussion regarding the legal standards (Rule 15) for permitting a witness to testify remotely due to a positive COVID test.
Conference Call
Court inquired why defense counsel was presenting two different versions of facts.
Unknown (Identified as Government Exhibit 28)
Letter at the Court identified as Government Exhibit 28.
Disclosure of research/internal communications
A letter addressing the Court's question regarding information on Juror Number One, disclosing the firm's earlier research.
July 21st letter
A letter submitted to the court.
Information regarding the investigation of Juror No. 1.
A letter dated July 21 was sent to the Court containing information about an investigation into Juror No. 1. The Court questions the witness about whether her law firm would have disclosed this information without being prompted.
Information regarding the investigation of Juror No. 1.
A letter dated July 21 was sent to the Court containing information about an investigation into Juror No. 1. The Court questions the witness about whether her law firm would have disclosed this information without being prompted.
Legal representation of facts
Comparison of facts in this letter versus a legal brief.
A matter related to a fact that had come to light after a...
A letter submitted to the court on July 21st, which included an attached Westlaw opinion. The questioning revolves around whether this letter was intended to mislead the court about when the information was discovered.
Epstein's Compliance
Stating Epstein has already registered and recognizes the duty, but reserving right to appeal.
SORA Registration
Explaining that the offense is registrable in Florida and recognized by NY State Board of Examiners.
Scheduling
Reference to a statement made 'yesterday' regarding witness timing and closing arguments.
Awareness of issues concerning Juror Number One [Conrad]
A conference call where the Court sought to determine if the defendants were aware of disturbing information about Juror Conrad. Trzaskoma responded on the call.
Argument for unsealing
Media organizations arguing for public access to the housing letters.
Question 49
Juror 50 answered a question regarding his history, which the court notes he did not read closely.
Financial Disclosure
Epstein will provide more specific information regarding assets in a sealed supplemental disclosure.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity