DOJ-OGR-00017942.jpg
639 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
639 KB
Summary
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.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Rocchio | Witness |
Mentioned in the header, indicating this is a transcript of their direct examination.
|
| Mr. Pagliuca | Counsel |
Mentioned by the speaker (likely the judge) as one of the counsels who had a misunderstanding about a line of questio...
|
| Unnamed Judge | Judge |
The primary speaker in the transcript, who is explaining a ruling, sustaining an objection, and addressing counsel.
|
| Unnamed Counsel | Counsel |
The person being addressed directly by the judge regarding the misunderstanding with Mr. Pagliuca and the violation o...
|
| Unnamed Woman | Witness |
Referred to as "she"; her testimony was the basis for the judge's exclusion of a certain topic.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page as the court reporting agency.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A judge addresses a dispute between counsel regarding the scope of questioning during a witness's (Rocchio's) direct examination, ultimately sustaining an objection.
Courtroom in the Southern District
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the name of the court reporting agency, "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
|
Relationships (3)
The judge refers to Mr. Pagliuca as one of the counsels involved in a dispute over the scope of questioning.
The judge is directly addressing this counsel, explaining a ruling and why an objection related to their questioning was sustained.
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.
Key Quotes (3)
"And she said no, which was the basis for my exclusion of that small window of her testimony."Source
— Unnamed Judge
(Explaining the reason for a prior ruling that limited the scope of a female witness's testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00017942.jpg
Quote #1
"I don't believe you intentionally violated my ruling."Source
— Unnamed Judge
(Addressing a counsel after sustaining an objection, clarifying that the violation was not seen as deliberate.)
DOJ-OGR-00017942.jpg
Quote #2
"Mr. Pagliuca says he asked specifically about the question that you asked, and understood you to say that you wouldn't ask it. And you said you asked specifically about this question and you understood him to say he didn't have an objection."Source
— Unnamed Judge
(Describing the complete misunderstanding between the two opposing counsels regarding a line of questioning.)
DOJ-OGR-00017942.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,639 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 747 Filed 08/10/22 Page 69 of 228 745
LC2VMAX2 Rocchio - Direct
LC2VMAX2 Rocchio - Direct
1 happens for the gratification of a third person.
2 And I said, Is there anything like that in the child
3 sexual abuse context beyond the, sort of, institutional
4 authority positions that you've discussed?
5 And she said no, which was the basis for my exclusion
6 of that small window of her testimony.
7 So I still think that even if there are slightly
8 distinct points to be made as to whether grooming always
9 happens for the sexual gratification of the person who's doing
10 the grooming, and whether grooming by a third person
11 facilitates child sexual abuse for another person, for me, the
12 context in the Daubert overlapped and related to the same
13 issue, which is the narrow issue that I excluded on.
14 So I take your point that there's a slight analytical
15 distinction and, therefore, I don't believe you intentionally
16 violated my ruling. I do think sustaining the objection is
17 consistent with that ruling. I don't understand how it could
18 be that in conferring, both counsel completely misunderstood
19 each other. Mr. Pagliuca says he asked specifically about the
20 question that you asked, and understood you to say that you
21 wouldn't ask it. And you said you asked specifically about
22 this question and you understood him to say he didn't have an
23 objection. Wow. I can't explain that. It seems to me that
24 you had this discussion on this issue precisely because it
25 comes up to the question of the boundaries of the opinion and
2 And I said, Is there anything like that in the child
3 sexual abuse context beyond the, sort of, institutional
4 authority positions that you've discussed?
5 And she said no, which was the basis for my exclusion
6 of that small window of her testimony.
7 So I still think that even if there are slightly
8 distinct points to be made as to whether grooming always
9 happens for the sexual gratification of the person who's doing
10 the grooming, and whether grooming by a third person
11 facilitates child sexual abuse for another person, for me, the
12 context in the Daubert overlapped and related to the same
13 issue, which is the narrow issue that I excluded on.
14 So I take your point that there's a slight analytical
15 distinction and, therefore, I don't believe you intentionally
16 violated my ruling. I do think sustaining the objection is
17 consistent with that ruling. I don't understand how it could
18 be that in conferring, both counsel completely misunderstood
19 each other. Mr. Pagliuca says he asked specifically about the
20 question that you asked, and understood you to say that you
21 wouldn't ask it. And you said you asked specifically about
22 this question and you understood him to say he didn't have an
23 objection. Wow. I can't explain that. It seems to me that
24 you had this discussion on this issue precisely because it
25 comes up to the question of the boundaries of the opinion and
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017942
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document