Trove
Sign In Sign Up

THE COURT

Person
Mentions
4828
Relationships
0
Events
0
Documents
2363
Also known as:
THE COURT, MR. DONALDSON
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.
No relationships found for this entity.
No events found for this entity.

DOJ-OGR-00015006.jpg

This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing a cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on the conclusion and methodology of a study. The judge interrupts the proceedings to call for a 30-minute lunch recess and advises the attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, to focus his questioning more on underlying 'Daubert questions' rather than points for a jury to make better use of the court's time.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014999.jpg

This document is a partial court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing a cross-examination by Mr. Pagliuca in the case Rocchio - Cross. The discussion centers on an article titled 'Observing Coercive Control Beyond Intimate Partner Violence' and its study, specifically questioning the witness about the 22 unidentified professional participants. The Court intervenes briefly for clarification during the testimony.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014989.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Rocchio. The testimony focuses on the connection between vulnerability factors and becoming a victim of sexual abuse. The witness provides a formal definition of 'grooming' as a set of deceptive strategies used to establish coercion and control for the purpose of sexual exploitation and abuse.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014987.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a cross-examination in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on January 15, 2025. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions a witness, Rocchio, about the existence of a definitive list of vulnerable populations, referencing the DSM 5 and the American Psychological Association. The witness states that while such lists exist in scientific literature, they have not personally written one down but are aware of these populations through their professional training and knowledge.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014982.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Cross-examination of witness Rocchio) filed on January 15, 2025, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The questioning focuses on Rocchio's qualifications as a forensic psychologist, specifically challenging whether they were explicitly qualified as an expert on 'grooming' in previous cases. Rocchio argues that grooming falls under 'interpersonal violence,' but admits to only testifying as a forensic psychologist approximately six times and being deposed four times.

Court transcript (cross-examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014977.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Maxwell). It features the cross-examination of an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio, by defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on Dr. Rocchio's definition of a 'child' (age of consent vs. under 18) and references a prior interview with the government on April 9, 2021, documented in '3500 material' (Jencks Act disclosures).

Court transcript (cross-examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014974.jpg

This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing a discussion between an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge. Mr. Pagliuca argues that under Rule 16, he should be able to examine all materials a witness, Dr. Rocchio, used to prepare her testimony. The judge challenges this broad interpretation, clarifying that only materials that form the actual basis of her opinion, not discarded notes or unrelated contracts, are relevant.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014973.jpg

Transcript page from the cross-examination of Dr. Rocchio in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Maxwell). The witness confirms possession of his engagement agreement and time logs, prompting defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca to request immediate production of the file. Prosecutor Ms. Pomerantz responds that the government has already fulfilled its Jencks Act obligations by producing notes from meetings and calls with the witness.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014968.jpg

This document is page 92 of a court transcript (Document 782, filed 01/15/25) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the direct examination of an expert witness, Dr. Rocchio, by Ms. Pomerantz. The testimony focuses on statistical methodologies for tracking sexual abuse disclosure rates, comparing retrospective studies with real-time data (such as children with STDs), and confirms the expert's opinion that childhood sexual abuse creates higher risks for victims.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014955.jpg

This document is page 79 of a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features the direct examination of expert witness Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz. Dr. Rocchio defines grooming as a pattern of coercive control and testifies that a relationship of trust between a victim and perpetrator causes the victim confusion regarding what constitutes abuse.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014954.jpg

This document is page 78 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on January 15, 2025. It features direct examination testimony from a witness named Rocchio, likely an expert on sexual abuse dynamics. The dialogue focuses on comparing 'grooming' strategies used by pimps to procure victims for third parties versus grooming for direct abuse, with the witness confirming that the coercive behaviors and techniques remain the same regardless of who receives the sexual gratification.

Court transcript (direct examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014952.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript dated January 15, 2025, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. A witness under direct examination by Rocchio discusses the psychological mechanisms of how trust is established in abusive relationships, citing an example where a victim trusted their abuser because the abuser was best friends with an older, respected person in their 'troop'. The Court questions the witness on whether this specific scenario is documented in academic literature, and the witness clarifies that while the general principles of creating an 'aura of trust' are studied, this highly specific example may not be.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014951.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The discussion focuses on whether the presence of a single other individual helps create trustworthiness that facilitates abuse. The witness states that while specific literature on a 'single other adult' in child sexual abuse is scarce, pimping and trafficking literature supports group activity, and their own forensic experience confirms that offenders frequently surround themselves with others to facilitate abuse.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014950.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case dated January 15, 2025, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The judge questions the witness about the grooming process for sexual abuse, specifically whether the presence of a third party can facilitate the abuse by building a victim's trust. The witness provides general statements about how offenders create trustworthy environments, but the judge presses for specific literature to substantiate the claim that a third party's inclusion is a recognized strategy for building trust.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014949.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on January 15, 2025, showing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by attorney Ms. Pomerantz. The questioning centers on the concept of 'grooming by proxy,' a term the witness is unfamiliar with in scientific literature. The judge intervenes to clarify the witness's expert opinion: that the presence of another individual can facilitate the sexual abuse of minors.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014948.jpg

This document is page 72 of a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It features a dialogue between the Court and a witness (Rocchio) regarding the forensic analysis of grooming. The witness explains that while prior sexual abuse increases vulnerability to subsequent abuse, that history alone does not determine whether grooming occurred in a specific instance.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014947.jpg

This page is a transcript from a court proceeding filed on January 15, 2025, featuring the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The testimony focuses on the psychological definitions of 'grooming' versus 'consensual sexual activity,' with the witness clarifying that prior victimization increases the likelihood of subsequent victimization and risky sexual behavior in adolescents, rather than consensual activity leading to grooming susceptibility. The Judge (The Court) intervenes to clarify the distinction regarding susceptibility to grooming tactics.

Court transcript (direct examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014946.jpg

This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio. The questioning focuses on whether a victim's prior sexual behavior or experience is relevant to their vulnerability to grooming. Rocchio testifies that there is no scientific literature or theoretical basis to support the idea that prior sexual activity makes someone more vulnerable to being groomed.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014930.jpg

This page contains a transcript of the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Dr. Rocchio provides expert testimony refuting an older article's conclusion that there is no consensus on 'grooming,' arguing that while universal agreement on every detail is rare in social science, there is definite scientific consensus on the phenomena of grooming and child sexual abuse.

Court transcript (direct examination)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014928.jpg

This document is a court transcript from January 15, 2025, detailing the direct examination of a witness, Dr. Rocchio, by an attorney, Ms. Pomerantz. Dr. Rocchio is questioned about an article and states that he disagrees with its conclusions. He specifically identifies a highlighted portion of the text as being incomplete.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014923.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the direct examination of Dr. Rocchio by Ms. Pomerantz. Dr. Rocchio testifies about the psychological concepts of 'trauma bonding,' 'coercion,' and 'grooming' in the context of sex trafficking and pimp/sex worker relationships. The prosecution also introduces Government Exhibit 3, an academic article validating a model of child sexual abusers, authored by Georgia Winters, Elizabeth Jeglic, and Leah Kaylor.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00014922.jpg

This document is page 46 of a court transcript filed on January 15, 2025, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The witness, Rocchio, is testifying about an academic study regarding 'coercive control' and victimization tactics. The Judge interrupts to ask specifically about the comparison between 'trauma bonding' and the relationship between a pimp and a sex worker.

Legal transcript (court testimony)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

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.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source
Total Received
$162,555,000.00
16 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$162,555,000.00
16 total transactions
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
As Sender
409
As Recipient
1009
Total
1418

Fairness and impartiality

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Replied by rote in the affirmative regarding fairness; provided explanations for incorrect questionnaire answers.

Testimony/inquiry
N/A
Communication Source

Briefing Schedule

From: Defense counsel
To: THE COURT

Proposal to write a letter proposing a schedule after conferring.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Clarification on Count Four

From: The jury
To: THE COURT

Question regarding Count Four and the second element.

Jury note
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Selection Questionnaire

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Juror 50 completed a questionnaire regarding his background.

Questionnaire
N/A
Communication Source

Defendant's primary sentencing submission

From: defense
To: THE COURT

Submission reviewed by the court

Submission
N/A
Communication Source

Cross-examination procedure

From: Mr. Everdell
To: THE COURT

Objection/point regarding the government referring to passengers as 'and others' without naming them.

Procedural discussion
N/A
Communication Source

Argument regarding travel purpose

From: Mr. Everdell
To: THE COURT

Discussing whether travel back to a place without illicit activity counts as significant purpose.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Jury instructions query

From: THE COURT
To: Mr. Everdell

Asking if the jury must conclude she aided in transportation of Jane's flight to New Mexico to find guilt.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Clarification of legal standard

From: MS. MENNINGER
To: THE COURT

Explaining the punctuation in a hypothetical question and clarifying that the flight must be for the purpose of illegal sexual activity.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Schedule

From: Jury
To: THE COURT

Note stating the jury is ready to leave at 5:30.

Note
N/A
Communication Source

Deliberation Instructions

From: THE COURT
To: Jury

Verbal instructions regarding adjournment, prohibition on outside communication, and schedule for the following morning.

Instruction
N/A
Communication Source

State of Arizona's argument

From: Attorney General
To: THE COURT

Argued presence at the scene was essential but conceded lack of proof of intent to kill.

Oral argument
N/A
Communication Source

Defense Rebuttal

From: Narrator
To: THE COURT

Argued brothers were not present, sent to get water, and lacked intent.

Oral argument (rebuttal)
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Selection Questionnaire

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Juror 50's responses during jury selection, specifically regarding prior experience with sexual assault.

Questionnaire
N/A
Communication Source

Juror 50 Mem.

From: Juror 50's counsel
To: THE COURT

States Juror 50 does not recall answering questions regarding sexual assault.

Legal memorandum
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Selection Questionnaire

From: Juror 50
To: THE COURT

Juror 50 rushed through the questionnaire and provided inaccurate answers regarding prior experiences.

Questionnaire
N/A
Communication Source

Assessment of Bias

From: THE COURT
To: Juror 50

The Court asked Juror 50 questions regarding prior sexual abuse and ability to be impartial.

Hearing
N/A
Communication Source

Dkt. No. 568

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Regarding press outlets and Juror 50's interviews; requested a hearing.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Dkt. No. 569

From: the defendant
To: THE COURT

Informing the Court about the juror's interviews.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Dkt. No. 570

From: the defendant
To: THE COURT

Opposing the Government's request for a hearing and arguing for a new trial.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Jury Schedule

From: Defense counsel
To: THE COURT

Counsel expresses concern that the jury might rush to judgment to avoid returning in January if the schedule bumps up against the Christmas holiday.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Response to Scheduling Concerns

From: Ms. Moe
To: THE COURT

Ms. Moe argues the request is premature but states that if the defense rests the week of the 20th, the jury should be permitted to deliberate.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Open issues

From: the government
To: THE COURT

Court expects to hear from government by letter by 2:00.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Objection/Questions

From: Defense counsel
To: THE COURT

Questions posed by defense counsel regarding Juror 50.

Letter submission
N/A
Communication Source

Request for items and definitions

From: Jury
To: THE COURT

Request for Post-Its, paperboard, highlighters, 'Matt's transcript', and a definition of 'enticement'.

Note
N/A
Communication Source

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search