MR. PAGLIUCA
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Counsel
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Defense
|
Professional representation |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Carolyn
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Rocchio
|
Adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Hesse
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
GOVERNMENT
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Hesse
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Shawn
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Nicole Hesse
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
EVA ADNERSSON DUBIN
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unknown Judge
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional opposing counsel |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed Questioner (Q)
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Witness (A)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MS. MENNINGER
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Witness (unnamed)
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. ROHRBACH
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Unnamed doctor
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The Court, The Witness (Carolyn)
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Dr. Rocchio
|
Adversarial professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Ms. Comey
|
Professional adversarial |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Court Recess pending verdict | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Discussion regarding Exhibit 3505-005 | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal sidebar/conference regarding a response to a jury question concerning witness Carolyn and a... | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell where she is questioned about computer files and a contact list. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell regarding lists of names associated with Jeffrey Epstein. | Unknown | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding media reports of Epstein's flight logs | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of Mrs. Hesse | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Shawn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Examination of Nicole Hesse | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Testimony of Carolyn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Admission of Government Exhibit 5 into evidence. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross Examination of Lisa Rocchio by Mr. Pagliuca | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Redirect examination of witness Carolyn. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Conclusion of Shawn's testimony and calling of Nicole Hesse to the stand. | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of witness Rocchio regarding the 'Craven article' and the definition of grooming. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court recess taken after discussion between counsel and judge. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the admissibility of Exhibit 52 (a book) to the jury. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct examination of witness Dubin regarding sexualized massages and relationship timeline. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Review of evidentiary exhibits (1J, 1K, 1M) during trial testimony. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Direct Examination of Carolyn | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Cross-examination of Juan Patricio Alessi | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Afternoon Court Session during Jury Deliberations | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal argument regarding the 'business record exception' and admissibility of phone logs/notes. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Testimony | Mr. Pagliuca summarizes testimony from four witnesses (Carolyn, Jane, Kate, Mr. Alessi) regarding... | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | Testimony | A witness is being questioned about Jeffrey Epstein's use of masseuses. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00013199.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness and plaintiff named Carolyn by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. Mr. Pagliuca reads from a legal complaint filed on Carolyn's behalf, which alleges she was first brought to defendant Jeffrey Epstein's mansion and introduced to him in May or June of 2002 at age 15. While Carolyn confirms the text is in the complaint, she states that the information is inaccurate.
DOJ-OGR-00013197.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 filed on Carolyn's behalf in 2008 against Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The proceedings are interrupted when another attorney, Ms. Comey, makes an objection that is subsequently sustained by the judge.
DOJ-OGR-00013196.jpg
This document is page 183 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) filed on August 10, 2022, featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The proceedings involve confusion regarding physical binders and Exhibit C4, during which the witness mentions the exhibit relates to her 'being arrested.' Following this statement and confusion over the document, Ms. Comey requests to approach the bench, and the subsequent pages (1622-1624) are noted as sealed.
DOJ-OGR-00013195.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a cross-examination. Mr. Pagliuca is questioning a witness, possibly named Carolyn, about a complaint that was 91 pages long with 209 paragraphs and did not mention Ms. Maxwell's name. They also discuss an Exhibit C4 and the filing of the complaint by Mr. Willits in state court.
DOJ-OGR-00013194.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning revisits her prior deposition, confirming her trust in her attorneys. It is also established that a complaint she previously filed in federal court was not against a Ms. Maxwell.
DOJ-OGR-00013193.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning focuses on two civil lawsuits she filed in 2008, her prior discussion with the FBI in 2007, and her memory of her lawyer at the time, Richard Willits. A lawyer, Mr. Pagliuca, interrupts to direct the court's attention to a specific page in a previous deposition.
DOJ-OGR-00013192.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 establishes that Carolyn filed a lawsuit against Epstein and Sarah Kellen in 2008 and was represented by lawyer Jack Scarola in a claim with the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund. The transcript also mentions that Carolyn moved from Florida to Georgia in 2003 after being told by someone named Sarah that Epstein wanted to take her photograph.
DOJ-OGR-00013191.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, confronts Carolyn with her 2007 statement to the FBI, in which she allegedly claimed a person named Sarah called her to relay messages from Epstein regarding concert tickets and a request to take photographs. The witness appears to challenge the relevance of the questions to the document she is being shown.
DOJ-OGR-00013189.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning focuses on discrepancies between her current testimony and a statement she gave to the FBI in 2007 regarding her visits to Epstein's residence. Specifically, she is questioned about whether it was Sarah or Maxwell who greeted her on her second visit and Sarah's role in scheduling massages.
DOJ-OGR-00013188.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 refreshing Carolyn's memory about a statement she gave to the FBI in 2007 concerning an incident in a kitchen, and a separate 'second visit' where a person named Sarah allegedly led her upstairs. Carolyn confirms the first memory but denies being led upstairs by anyone.
DOJ-OGR-00013185.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning focuses on a discrepancy between her current testimony and a 2007 statement she gave to the FBI regarding how she obtained Mr. Epstein's phone number. The transcript also reveals that Epstein paid Carolyn $300 and that she later attempted to schedule a massage by leaving a message with someone named Sarah.
DOJ-OGR-00013182.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) documenting the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The testimony confirms that in 2007, Carolyn told the FBI she saw an older woman with short black hair at Epstein's house. It further details an incident where Ms. Roberts led Carolyn upstairs to Epstein, instructed Carolyn to rub Epstein's legs, while Roberts rubbed his back.
DOJ-OGR-00013179.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (filed August 10, 2022) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The questioning focuses on impeaching Carolyn's credibility regarding statements she made to the FBI and testimony she gave during a 2009 deposition. Specifically, Carolyn admits she omitted things to the FBI due to embarrassment, while the attorney points out she previously testified under oath that she had told the truth.
DOJ-OGR-00013176.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, detailing a sidebar conversation during the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Attorneys, including Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, debate the appropriateness of discussing Carolyn's mental health and family issues, which are linked to past actions by someone named Epstein. The judge ultimately decides to move the sensitive discussion to the robing room to be held under seal.
DOJ-OGR-00013175.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument by an attorney, Mr. Pagliuca. He requests permission from the judge to cross-examine a witness, Carolyn, on her extensive psychiatric history, drug abuse, and schizophrenia, arguing that the witness minimized these issues and her own testimony opened the door for this line of questioning.
DOJ-OGR-00013174.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). Defense attorneys Ms. Sternheim and Mr. Pagliuca discuss procedural matters with the Judge, including objections to the relevance of upcoming witness testimony and the estimated duration (1-1.5 hours) of Mr. Pagliuca's cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The transcript captures the logistical coordination to ensure the jury is not left waiting.
DOJ-OGR-00013160.jpg
This document is a transcript of a cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning focuses on her first meeting with Virginia Roberts and a subsequent visit to Mr. Epstein's house in May or June of 2002. The testimony establishes that Carolyn had never been to the house or met Mr. Epstein before this visit and did not know his name until she arrived.
DOJ-OGR-00013158.jpg
This page contains a cross-examination transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) of a witness named Carolyn, filed on August 10, 2022. Attorney Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness about her previous deposition testimony given in 2009 related to a civil lawsuit she filed against Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. The proceedings are momentarily interrupted to adjust the display size of an exhibit (3505-043) for the court.
DOJ-OGR-00013157.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The questioning focuses on whether Carolyn was instructed by Ms. Roberts and/or a person named Virginia to lie about her age, claiming to be 17, to a man named Epstein. The transcript confirms Carolyn told the FBI this in 2007 and also discusses her first visit to Epstein's house, arranged by Ms. Roberts, to provide a massage for payment.
DOJ-OGR-00013156.jpg
This document is a page from a cross-examination transcript (filed Aug 10, 2022) of a witness named Carolyn in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. Carolyn testifies that Ms. Roberts (Virginia Roberts) dressed her 'sexy' and 'provocatively' to take her to meet a friend (Mr. Epstein) in Palm Beach to make money. The testimony details that Roberts drove Carolyn to the location and told her they would massage Epstein together so Carolyn wouldn't feel uncomfortable, with specific instructions about clothing removal given in the massage room.
DOJ-OGR-00013155.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 prior conversation Carolyn had with a 'Ms. Roberts' about the possibility of making 'a lot of money real fast,' which Carolyn denies occurred as stated. The transcript also includes procedural discussions between the attorneys (Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey) and the judge regarding the witness's memory versus a document.
DOJ-OGR-00013154.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 centers on a statement Carolyn allegedly made to the FBI in August 2007, claiming that a person named Virginia told her she could earn $300 by massaging a man in Palm Beach. Carolyn denies making that statement to the FBI at that time, asserting she was told about the massage opportunity later, at Mr. Epstein's house.
DOJ-OGR-00013153.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn by attorney Mr. Pagliuca. The testimony focuses on a conversation where Virginia Roberts approached Carolyn to meet an 'older man' friend in Palm Beach, potentially involving a massage for $300. Carolyn explicitly clarifies that Ghislaine Maxwell was not present during this specific conversation with Virginia.
DOJ-OGR-00013152.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, showing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. An attorney questions her about a statement she allegedly made to the FBI in 2007, claiming Virginia offered her $300 at a party. Carolyn denies the accuracy of the statement, clarifying the event was not a party and took place at Virginia's house.
DOJ-OGR-00013151.jpg
This document is page 138 of a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) featuring the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. The witness denies drinking alcohol or doing drugs and emphatically denies an allegation that Virginia Roberts approached her at a party about making $300. The witness confirms she first spoke to the FBI about Mr. Epstein in 2007. Attorneys Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Comey participate in the procedural handling of evidence binders.
Cross-examination regarding Craven article
Discussion about the definition and understanding of 'sexual grooming of children' based on a 2006 article.
Objection to Summary Witness
Pagliuca argues that Mr. Buscemi is not an appropriate summary witness under Rule 1006 because he may be analyzing complex records rather than summarizing admitted evidence.
Request for limited exclusion from Rule 615
Mr. Pagliuca requested permission to provide a copy of Dr. Rocchio's testimony to Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus, asking for a limited exclusion from sequestration Rule 615.
Unknown
The Court mentions giving a note to Mr. Pagliuca.
Cross-examination regarding a 2009 deposition
A transcript of a court proceeding where Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about a deposition from October 21, 2009. The witness denies having seen the document and denies taking hallucinogenics. The court and the witness's counsel, Ms. Comey, also speak.
Juror scheduling and potential trial break
Mr. Pagliuca expresses that he does not want to delay the trial but needs to know if the juror in question is from the main or alternate pool to make a decision, as it affects his prior peremptory challenges.
Cross-examination duration
Estimating cross-examination will take an hour to an hour and a half.
Cross-examination regarding a study on disclosure
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Rocchio, about a statement in a study that "Two-thirds of the sample did not disclose right away." Pagliuca points out that the term "right away" is not defined. Rocchio clarifies that the article submitted was a summary and admits to not having examined every underlying study or reference cited.
Cross-examination regarding a government contract
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Rocchio, about the terms of a government contract. Rocchio confirms the contract is for up to $45,000 at a rate of $450 per hour, and states that no payment has been received yet because an invoice has not been submitted.
Cross-examination regarding Government Exhibit 6
Discussion regarding a study of 322 articles, specifically regarding delayed reporting of psychological issues by males versus females.
Admission of evidence (Exhibits A and B)
Mr. Pagliuca moves to admit Exhibit A into evidence, which the court allows after confirming no objection from Ms. Pomerantz. He then begins questioning a witness, referred to as 'Doctor', about Exhibit B.
Basis for witness testimony under Rule 16
Mr. Pagliuca argues to the Court that under Rule 16, he is entitled to examine all materials a witness (Dr. Rocchio) relied on for her testimony. The Court questions the scope of this, suggesting that discarded notes or contracts may not constitute a valid basis for an opinion.
Direct Examination / Exhibit Admission
Mr. Pagliuca resumes direct examination of Dr. Dubin and offers Exhibit 662-RR into evidence.
Admissibility of Evidence (Exhibit 52)
Discussion regarding whether Exhibit 52 will be admitted in redacted form and if the defense will stipulate that sub-exhibits are true copies.
Direct Examination
Questioning regarding observations of inappropriate conduct between Epstein and teenage females.
Witness Preclusion
Clarifying that Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards are precluded so they can be released.
Adherence to household manual
Questioning regarding whether Alessi followed a specific manual and knowledge of 'the countess'.
Witness's personal background information
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Dr. Dubin, to establish her identity and personal background, including her residence, age, marital status, husband's name, and number of children.
Cross-examination regarding prior deposition testimony
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about her deposition testimony from 2009 related to her civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. He directs her to specific pages and lines of the deposition transcript.
Admissibility and Procedural Status
Discussion regarding not admitting a specific item and determining where questioning left off (around '33') to be handled at sidebar.
Objection to evidence
Mr. Pagliuca objects on hearsay grounds to records for which the witness does not have personal knowledge, specifically beyond the signature she took.
Motion for mistrial due to misuse of evidence
Mr. Pagliuca argues that the government, in its closing argument, misused evidence (Exhibit 52) by encouraging the jury to infer the truth of the matter contained within it, contrary to the court's limiting instruction. He requests a mistrial or, alternatively, a re-instruction to the jury.
Admissibility of questions 16 and 17
Mr. Pagliuca discusses specific questions from a document with the Court, focusing on questions about visits to Mr. Epstein's home and financial matters. The Court sustains an objection but indicates a willingness to allow the questions.
Admissibility of evidence for impeachment
Mr. Pagliuca argues to admit paragraphs 207 and 208 regarding Sarah Kellen to impeach the witness by omission because Ms. Maxwell's name is not mentioned. The Court sustains the objection, finding the paragraphs inadmissible.
Relevance of Dr. Rocchio's testimony
Discussion regarding 'grooming the environment,' perpetrator deception, and hindsight bias effect.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity