Relationship Details

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.

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.

A page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) detailing a procedural argument between attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge. The discussion centers on how to present documents designated for 'refreshing recollection' without exposing identifying information to the public via courtroom screens. The Judge suggests using paper to ensure anonymity, while Mr. Pagliuca argues this is impractical due to the 'thousands of pages' involved.

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 records a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Defense Attorney Pagliuca, and Prosecutor Comey regarding the admissibility of evidence connected to the testimony of Mr. Alessi and an anticipated witness. The discussion concludes with the court taking a recess.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Dec 10, 2021) detailing a discussion between the Judge and attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The Judge instructs the attorney to prioritize using physical binders for cross-examination exhibits rather than relying solely on digital screens, though exceptions are allowed. The document is stamped with a Department of Justice identifier.

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.

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330 (USA v. Maxwell). It depicts a brief exchange during the cross-examination of witness Alessi, where attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues about inconsistencies in specific paragraphs, but the Court sustains objections against them.

This document is page 54 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The page captures a brief exchange during the direct examination of a witness named Rocchio, where the Judge ('The Court') addresses a procedural disagreement regarding a question asked by Mr. Pagliuca, noting the necessity of the court reporter. The majority of the page is blank, indicating the session continued on the next page.

This document is a single page (page 31 of 246) from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, related to Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text captures a brief exchange between the Marshal, Attorney Mr. Pagliuca, and the Judge regarding the readiness for a female individual waiting outside and an order to bring in the jury.

This document is a page from a court transcript in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). The Judge rules that the government cannot use a witness with no personal experience to present a 'streamlined version of the closing argument,' distinguishing this from a Rule 1006 data summary. The parties also discuss the timing of a ruling on 'Exhibit 52' relative to when the government rests its case.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues regarding the admissibility of communications between witnesses' lawyers (specifically mentioning Mr. Scarola) and the government, citing an email where Scarola suggested ten interview topics for a witness named Carolyn. The discussion centers on whether these communications and proffers are privileged or if they can be used as evidence regarding the 'cultivating of stories'.

This document is a partial court transcript from August 10, 2022, for Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, focusing on a discussion about 'Government Exhibit 1B'. Ms. Moe requests the jury to access the exhibit and clarifies its location in binders, then proceeds to question Mrs. Hesse about it. A key point is Ms. Moe's caution about not reading names aloud from the exhibit, suggesting sensitive information.

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.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely US v. Ghislaine Maxwell) where attorney Mr. Pagliuca discusses the admissibility of evidence regarding communications between witnesses' lawyers and the government. Specifically, Pagliuca mentions an email from attorney Mr. Scarola to the government suggesting ten topics for an interview with a woman named Carolyn. The discussion centers on whether these communications (proffers and emails) are privileged and how they will be introduced without calling the lawyers as witnesses.

This document is page 55 of a court transcript from the trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It depicts a procedural discussion during the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi (likely Juan Alessi). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca and the Judge discuss referencing specific lines from 'yesterday's testimony' and a deposition to establish context for the witness.

This document is page 14 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a procedural debate between the Judge ('The Court') and attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding the mechanics of presenting documents during cross-examination, specifically debating the use of physical binders versus electronic displays. The Judge instructs counsel to prepare binders for potential use to ensure smooth proceedings.

This document is page 10 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a discussion between the Judge, prosecutor Ms. Comey, and defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding the testimony of a records custodian and the government's failure to list a specific financial institution prior to trial. Additionally, Mr. Pagliuca requests permission to use electronic methods for impeaching or refreshing the recollection of witnesses during the trial.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge and attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding the logistics of maintaining witness anonymity in the courtroom. Specifically, they discuss preventing the public from seeing identifying information on counsel's screens while ensuring the government and jurors have access to necessary documents.

This document is a partial transcript from a court proceeding on August 10, 2022, involving Mr. Pagliuca, Ms. Comey, and The Court. The discussion centers on an objection regarding a document's consistency with witness testimony and the potential admission of the document or its factual paragraphs. A key point of inquiry was whether Ms. Maxwell is mentioned in the complaint, to which the answer was confirmed as no, leading to a plan to identify inconsistencies with testimony.

This document is a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the recross-examination of a witness, Carolyn, by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, concerning $446,000 she received in 2009. The witness states she does not recall the exact dates the money was spent but used it for a house, car, and food, after which she is excused and the court adjourns until the next day.