Relationship Details

This document is page 61 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (the Ghislaine Maxwell trial), filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a legal argument during the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. Ms. Comey objects to the defense using a prior declaration, arguing it isn't inconsistent, but the Court overrules the objection, allowing Mr. Pagliuca to question the witness about the discrepancy between 'multiple occasions' (testimony) and 'one' (declaration).

This document is a transcript page from a court sidebar conference in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca apologizes for an unintentional error during the cross-examination of a witness named Alessi. Prosecutor Ms. Comey criticizes his preparation and suggests a protocol for reading prior inconsistent statements, while the Judge accepts the apology as an accident but warns that a different approach will be needed if the error repeats.

A transcript page from a court hearing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on December 10, 2021. Ms. Comey (Government) argues that certain past offenses, such as juvenile curfew violations and old misdemeanors, should not be grounds for cross-examination. Mr. Pagliuca (Defense) argues that the government's list includes items within the rules. The Judge intervenes, instructing the attorneys to have a 'mature, reasonable discussion' to reach an agreement and to submit any remaining good-faith disputes in writing for judicial resolution.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, covering the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca objects to the admission of exhibits 2C through 2W, arguing they were not written by Mr. Alessi or his wife and lack authentication. The Court (Judge) asks to see 'the book' containing the exhibits and subsequently overrules the objection.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion between the prosecution (Ms. Comey) and defense (Mr. Pagliuca) regarding the testimony of a witness named Loftus and the admission of an FBI 302 report. The defense argues for a live witness to highlight an inconsistent statement regarding whether 'Virginia' approached 'Carolyn' to offer $300 at a party or at a house in Virginia.

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.

A transcript page from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. The Judge discusses a potential stipulation regarding testimony from Mr. Glassman about advice he gave to 'Jane' concerning cooperation with the government, aiming to avoid attorney-client privilege issues. The court also addresses administrative matters regarding letters submitted the previous night.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a discussion between the Judge ('The Court'), Ms. Comey, and Mr. Pagliuca regarding how to respond to a jury question about an item labeled '3505-005'. The parties agree to send a note clarifying that 3505-005 is not an admitted exhibit but referring the jury to 'Carolyn's testimony' regarding it.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) covering the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The text details a legal argument between prosecutor Ms. Comey and defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca regarding the admissibility of questions about specific paragraphs (39, 51, 57) of a complaint. Ms. Comey explicitly describes an incident where Jeffrey Epstein brought another female into a room and penetrated the victim twice.

This document is page 199 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. It records a legal argument between the Judge ('The Court') and attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey regarding the legal theory of 'omission' and whether prior statements lacking certain facts constitute an inconsistency relevant to the jury. Ms. Comey argues that omission is only relevant if the omitted facts would reasonably have been expected in the original statement.

This document is page 7 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 10, 2022. The text details a legal argument where the defense (Mr. Pagliuca) is barred by the Court from calling an attorney as a witness without prior briefing due to privilege concerns regarding 'Minor Victim 4'. The prosecution (Ms. Comey) then requests clarification on whether the jury will be instructed during preliminary instructions that witnesses will use pseudonyms, to which the Court agrees to address before opening statements.

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.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022, during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues for the inclusion of specific interrogatory questions (16 and 17) regarding how the witness came to be at Jeffrey Epstein's home and whether she received any money or things of value. The Court sustains an objection regarding 'compound' questions but indicates an inclination to allow question 16.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on 08/10/22, documenting proceedings leading up to an adjournment to December 2, 2021. Prosecutor Ms. Comey estimates the government will rest its case in the third week of trial, while defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca anticipates shorter cross-examinations for future witnesses due to less '3500 impeachment material.' The session concludes with the Judge adjourning until the following morning.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed August 10, 2022) during the direct examination of a witness named Alessi. A procedural discussion occurs between the Judge (The Court), Defense Attorney Mr. Pagliuca, and Prosecutor Ms. Comey regarding an objection to the foundation of the witness's knowledge about a specific 'book' created after the witness left employment in 2002. The Court decides to allow the question provisionally, noting the testimony will be stricken if proper foundation is not established.

This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed 08/10/22) detailing a sidebar conference during the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca argues that reading only two lines of a prior statement removes necessary context. The Court rules that the witness can read the 'whole thing,' and prosecutor Ms. Comey agrees, coordinating specific line numbers (136, line 23 through line 6) with the defense.

This document is page 4 of a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. Ms. Comey (Government) argues that the defense should not be allowed to cross-examine a witness regarding juvenile arrests and old misdemeanors, and asks for a pretrial ruling to determine if she needs to disclose these facts on direct examination to 'draw the sting.' The Judge orders the parties to have a 'mature, reasonable discussion' to resolve agreed-upon issues and to submit only genuine legal disputes in writing.