The document details a complete misunderstanding between them about whether a specific question was permissible, requiring the judge to intervene and rule on the matter.
DOJ-OGR-00017942.jpg
This court transcript from August 10, 2022, captures a judge's remarks during a hearing. The judge explains the reasoning for sustaining an objection related to a prior "Daubert" ruling on the scope of testimony about child grooming. The judge highlights a significant misunderstanding between opposing counsel, Mr. Pagliuca and another unnamed lawyer, but concludes that the violation of the ruling was not intentional.
Entities connected to both MR. PAGLIUCA and Unnamed Counsel
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein relationship