SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
OrganizationRelationship Network
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.
DOJ-OGR-00018793.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, for case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The page captures the moment the judge announces a 15-minute afternoon break to the jury, following the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The transcript was produced by Southern District Reporters, P.C.
DOJ-OGR-00018792.jpg
This document is page 194 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It details the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca, focusing on verifying her signature on page 19 of Exhibit C8. The defense moves to admit Exhibits C8 and C9, to which prosecutor Ms. Comey objects, and the Court defers the ruling until a break.
DOJ-OGR-00018791.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. Mr. Pagliuca attempts to refresh the witness's memory regarding prior statements made under oath in 2009 and her answers to interrogatories, but the witness expresses confusion. Another attorney, Ms. Comey, repeatedly objects to the line of questioning, and the court sustains her objections.
DOJ-OGR-00018790.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. An attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, questions her about her memory of answering written interrogatories for a lawsuit, which she claims not to recall. The attorneys and the judge then discuss showing Carolyn a portion of her deposition transcript to potentially refresh her recollection.
DOJ-OGR-00018787.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 complaint Carolyn previously filed against Mr. Epstein and Sarah Kellen. Carolyn states she does not recall certain details of the complaint and denies having reviewed or approved it before her lawyers filed it in federal court.
DOJ-OGR-00018786.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 paragraph from a 2009 federal complaint against Jeffrey Epstein, which alleges Epstein paid Carolyn $300 after an encounter. The transcript captures a legal objection by another attorney, Ms. Comey, which the judge sustains.
DOJ-OGR-00018785.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn regarding allegations against Jeffrey Epstein. The testimony, read from a legal filing, describes an incident where Carolyn was paid $300 by Epstein to observe a sexual act performed by her friend on him. It also mentions a subsequent telephone call where Epstein requested Carolyn return to his residence to give him a massage.
DOJ-OGR-00018783.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 complaint (Exhibit C5) where Carolyn made a claim against a Mr. Epstein; Carolyn now states that the complaint, which she previously testified under oath was accurate, was in fact not accurate. Mr. Pagliuca also establishes that a specific paragraph of the complaint does not contain the name "Maxwell."
DOJ-OGR-00018782.jpg
This document is page 184 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca is cross-examining a witness named Carolyn regarding a complaint filed on her behalf by attorney Mr. Willits in 2008 against Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) successfully objects to the admission of defense exhibit C4 on the grounds that it is 'not inconsistent,' leading the defense to request a sidebar.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity