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-00013149.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Carolyn. Carolyn confirms she received wired money from a fund and, as a condition, signed a waiver agreeing not to sue any of Jeffrey Epstein's employees, which she understands includes a person named Maxwell. The transcript concludes with one attorney, Ms. Comey, finishing her questions and another, Mr. Pagliuca, beginning his cross-examination.
DOJ-OGR-00013147.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the questioning of a witness named Carolyn by an attorney, Ms. Comey. Carolyn confirms her prior testimony from December 2009, stating she called Mr. Epstein's residence to arrange a paid massage. She recalls speaking with individuals named Sarah and Maxwell, or other household staff, who took messages for Mr. Epstein.
DOJ-OGR-00013142.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), featuring the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. Carolyn testifies that someone took nude photos of her and discusses a previous lawsuit she filed, confirmng she hired a lawyer for it. The defense attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, successfully objects to questions regarding who made the decision on whom to sue. Carolyn also confirms she was deposed in 2009 but was not asked about her time working for an escort service during that deposition.
DOJ-OGR-00013137.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. She testifies about her past criminal record, admitting to a 2011 arrest for cocaine possession, for which she pleaded guilty, and a 2013 arrest for possessing stolen property. Her testimony about the stolen property, an Xbox she claims belonged to her son, is partially struck from the record as hearsay.
DOJ-OGR-00013129.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript of the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. She testifies that she gave her address to Ghislaine Maxwell so that Jeffrey Epstein could send her gifts, which included lingerie from Victoria's Secret, a massage book, and Incubus concert tickets. Carolyn also confirms that she massaged Epstein and that Virginia and other females were sometimes present in the room during these massages.
DOJ-OGR-00013119.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) dated August 10, 2022. The witness, Carolyn, testifies that either Maxwell or Sarah would call to schedule appointments and arrange transportation (cabs or Town Cars). She confirms that an individual named Shawn drove her to Jeffrey Epstein's house but never went inside, although she did see Epstein outside the house while Shawn was present.
DOJ-OGR-00013116.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. Carolyn testifies that a person named Maxwell would call her to schedule appointments, often stating that "they," referring to Maxwell and Mr. Epstein, were flying in from out of town. The transcript also notes the admission of an exhibit (GX-608), Carolyn's mother's phone number, into evidence under seal to protect the witness's anonymity.
DOJ-OGR-00013113.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) featuring the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn. The witness identifies Government Exhibit 104 as a photograph of herself at age 14, taken when she visited Jeffrey Epstein's house. The exhibit is admitted under seal to protect her anonymity.
DOJ-OGR-00013100.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) documenting the direct examination of a witness named Carolyn by prosecutor Ms. Comey. During this segment, the witness identifies Government Exhibit 11 (GX-11) as her birth certificate and confirms her full name and date of birth listed on the document without stating them aloud. The defense attorney, Mr. Pagliuca, offers no objection to the proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00009100.jpg
This document is page 128 (filed on 02/24/22) of a court transcript from the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). It records Judge Nathan dismissing Juror No. 49 and beginning the questioning of Juror No. 50. The judge instructs Juror No. 50 on the presumption of innocence for Ms. Maxwell and strictly prohibits consuming media related to the case.
DOJ-OGR-00017344.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, discussing the scheduling of a trial's jury deliberation. An unnamed speaker (likely the judge) explains the necessity of the current schedule, citing a significant increase in COVID-19 omicron variant cases in New York City, which poses a risk to trial completion and could lead to a mistrial. Mr. Pagliuca, addressing 'Your Honor,' expresses concern about jurors deliberating through the weekend and New Year's, arguing against retracting a prior commitment from the Court to give them those days off, suggesting deliberation only during the workweek.
DOJ-OGR-00017343.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed in August 2022 but recording events during the trial's jury deliberations (likely December 2021). The Judge discusses a note received from the jury requesting to end the day at 5:00 p.m. and resume the next morning. Citing the risk of the 'omicron variant,' the Judge rules that deliberations must continue every day, including weekends if necessary, until a verdict is reached.
DOJ-OGR-00017287.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between the judge and several attorneys (Mr. Pagliuca, Ms. Menninger, Ms. Sternheim) regarding the scheduling of jury deliberations. The judge sets the hours for the following day and considers the possibility of the jury working on an upcoming Thursday, noting that the court is not always closed before Christmas Eve.
DOJ-OGR-00017284.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022. It details a conversation between the judge and several individuals, likely attorneys, regarding testimony from 'Carolyn' and 'Special Agent Jason Richards' concerning an exhibit. The discussion concludes with a request for court notes, which the judge agrees to provide after redacting the jury foreperson's signature.
DOJ-OGR-00017282.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, capturing a discussion between counsel (Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca) and the judge. The main topic is how to properly respond to a jury's request for a specific document that has not been admitted into evidence, although testimony about the document has been presented. The lawyers and judge debate the precise wording of the response to avoid confusing the jury or improperly influencing their view of the existing evidence.
DOJ-OGR-00017281.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a discussion between two attorneys, Ms. Comey and Mr. Pagliuca, and the judge regarding how to instruct the jury about a document used for impeachment but not admitted into evidence. The parties debate the appropriate wording to avoid confusion while acknowledging the testimony related to the document.
DOJ-OGR-00017273.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge and several attorneys (Ms. Sternheim, Mr. Pagliuca, Mr. Everdell) about the procedures for jury deliberations. The judge outlines the schedule, including a 9:00 a.m. start time, and clarifies that exhibits will be provided automatically to the jury. The discussion also covers the roles of court staff like the deputy and marshal in managing the jury process.
DOJ-OGR-00017272.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a sidebar conversation on August 10, 2022. The judge discusses with counsel the procedures for alternate jurors, deciding they can be on-call due to the pandemic, rather than remaining at the courthouse. The judge also confirms the specific numbers of the five alternate jurors with the agreement of all counsel present.
DOJ-OGR-00014000.jpg
This document is a transcript page from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE) dated August 10, 2022. Attorneys Menninger, Comey, and Pagliuca are discussing procedural matters with the Judge regarding the admission of prior inconsistent statements for a witness named 'Carolyn' (who is present from out of state) and future discussions regarding witnesses 'Jane' and 'Annie'. The attorneys reference specific transcript lines (1610 and 1611) and an FBI 302 report.
DOJ-OGR-00013890.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00013864.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court hearing on August 10, 2022. The judge provides guidance on witness testimony, confirms the preclusion of testimony from Mr. Scarola and Mr. Edwards, and addresses a government objection to admitting a 1996 sale agreement for a London property as evidence. The discussion involves several attorneys, including Mr. Pagliuca, Mr. Rohrbach, and Mr. Everdell.
DOJ-OGR-00013839.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a procedural discussion where the Judge instructs Defense Attorney Mr. Pagliuca to provide witness lists and exhibits, noting that the Government (represented here by Ms. Moe) is expected to rest its case that week. The proceedings are briefly interrupted by an unexplained noise, which the Judge jokingly refers to as 'the ghost of Friday.'
DOJ-OGR-00013838.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, from United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca explains difficulties in finalizing a witness list because the government rested its case earlier than expected, causing scheduling and travel issues. Prosecutor Ms. Moe counters that the defense was warned repeatedly and demands immediate production of Rule 26 materials, including expert communications, contracts, and witness interview notes.
DOJ-OGR-00013608.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures the direct examination of Supervisory Investigator Brown by attorney Mr. Rohrbach regarding Government Exhibits 21 and 22. The court admits Exhibit 21 under seal to protect witness identities, and Brown testifies that Exhibit 22 is a DMV image capture of the same person, stored in a photosystem database.
DOJ-OGR-00013604.jpg
This document is a page from the court transcript of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on August 10, 2022. It details a courtroom exchange where Prosecutor Ms. Moe asks jurors to review Government Exhibit 52G (sealed), specifically trying to point them to entries regarding 'massage, Florida.' Defense attorney Mr. Pagliuca objects to this direction, and the objection is sustained by the Court, allowing jurors to review the document without specific direction.
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.
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.
Cross-examination duration
Estimating cross-examination will take an hour to an hour and a half.
Cross-examination regarding Craven article
Discussion about the definition and understanding of 'sexual grooming of children' based on a 2006 article.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Scope of cross-examination regarding a study on grooming ...
Mr. Pagliuca previews his intent to cross-examine a witness about a study (disclosure 3502-018) which concluded that five factors cannot be used to prospectively predict grooming behavior. The Court grants permission, noting it is consistent with the witness's testimony.
Direct Examination / Exhibit Admission
Mr. Pagliuca resumes direct examination of Dr. Dubin and offers Exhibit 662-RR into evidence.
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.
Cross-examination regarding a 2016 statement
Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about a previous statement under oath concerning recommendations for massages from Mr. Epstein's friends.
Cross-examination regarding past substance abuse
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about her use of alcohol and drugs during the 2002-2003 timeframe, when she was approximately 13 years old.
Admissibility of paragraphs 207 and 208 for impeachment
Mr. Pagliuca argues to admit paragraphs 207 and 208 concerning Sarah Kellen, claiming they represent impeachment by omission because Ms. Maxwell's name is not mentioned. The Court questions the inconsistency and ultimately sustains the objection, ruling the paragraphs inadmissible on those grounds.
Cross-examination regarding prior testimony in exhibit 35...
Mr. Pagliuca questions Mr. Alessi about his deposition testimony and discusses the admission of this testimony as evidence with the court.
Cross-examination regarding sexual intercourse with Mr. E...
Mr. Pagliuca questions the witness, Carolyn, about a previous deposition answer where she denied having sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein. The witness confirms the previous answer but then provides a detailed clarification.
Inconsistency in witness testimony regarding dates of all...
Mr. Pagliuca argues that a witness's testimony should be impeached due to a discrepancy in the timeline of alleged events. He states the indictment and direct testimony mentioned 2001, but the complaint and cross-examination point to a 2002-2003 timeframe.
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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity