DOJ-OGR-00017943.jpg
581 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
581 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022. It captures a dialogue between attorneys (Ms. Pomerantz, Mr. Pagliuca) and the judge regarding a question posed to a witness, Dr. Rocchio. The judge clarifies why a specific question about grooming and sexual gratification was objected to and ultimately precluded, citing the narrow basis for excluding testimony on the theory of 'grooming by proxy'.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| PAGLIUCA | Mr. |
Speaker in the transcript, addressing the Honor (judge).
|
| POMERANTZ | Ms. |
Speaker in the transcript, addressing the Honor (judge) to clarify a point about a question posed to Dr. Rocchio.
|
| Rocchio | Dr. |
Mentioned as the person (witness) to whom a question was posed during the court proceedings.
|
| Honor | Judge |
Addressed multiple times by Mr. Pagliuca and Ms. Pomerantz; refers to the presiding judge.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Speaker in the transcript, clarifying the question that was objected to and the reason for precluding certain testimony.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that transcribed the proceeding.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Implied by the name of the court reporting agency, "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.", likely referring to a U.S. Fe...
|
Relationships (3)
Ms. Pomerantz, likely an attorney, is addressing the judge ('your Honor') to clarify a point in the court record.
Mr. Pagliuca, likely an attorney, addresses the judge ('your Honor') during the proceeding.
MS. POMERANTZ
→
professional
→
Dr. Rocchio
Ms. Pomerantz discusses a question that was posed to Dr. Rocchio, indicating Dr. Rocchio is a witness being examined.
Key Quotes (2)
"The question you asked that was objected to here was, Based on your experience, research, and training, is the person doing the grooming always the recipient of the sexual gratification?"Source
— THE COURT
(The judge is restating a question that was previously asked and objected to, in order to explain the court's ruling.)
DOJ-OGR-00017943.jpg
Quote #1
"For the reasons I've indicated, that is precluded by the narrow basis on which I did preclude what they call grooming by proxy."Source
— THE COURT
(The judge is explaining the legal reasoning for excluding a line of questioning and testimony.)
DOJ-OGR-00017943.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,462 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 747 Filed 08/10/22 Page 70 of 228 746
LC2VMAX2
Rocchio - Direct
LC2VMAX2
Rocchio - Direct
1 there we are.
2 Anything further?
3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Not from me, your Honor.
4 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, nothing further.
5 I just wanted to note that in the transcript for your
6 Honor. Our understanding is that the question that had been
7 posed to Dr. Rocchio was about the presence of third parties,
8 and just wanted to make that clear for your Honor when she had
9 said no, that was our understanding as to what she was saying
10 no about, in terms of the support in the literature, your
11 Honor.
12 But I take your Honor's point. We can move on, your
13 Honor. I just wanted to explain that to the Court, where the
14 question was coming from, your Honor.
15 THE COURT: The question you asked that was objected
16 to here was, Based on your experience, research, and training,
17 is the person doing the grooming always the recipient of the
18 sexual gratification?
19 For the reasons I've indicated, that is precluded by
20 the narrow basis on which I did preclude what they call
21 grooming by proxy. Again, I see there's a slight analytical
22 distinction between the question you asked and that theory, but
23 the question, I think -- and I see that she says no, that
24 wasn't how she understood it. But still for me, that testimony
25 was in aid of the next piece, which I excluded.
2 Anything further?
3 MR. PAGLIUCA: Not from me, your Honor.
4 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, nothing further.
5 I just wanted to note that in the transcript for your
6 Honor. Our understanding is that the question that had been
7 posed to Dr. Rocchio was about the presence of third parties,
8 and just wanted to make that clear for your Honor when she had
9 said no, that was our understanding as to what she was saying
10 no about, in terms of the support in the literature, your
11 Honor.
12 But I take your Honor's point. We can move on, your
13 Honor. I just wanted to explain that to the Court, where the
14 question was coming from, your Honor.
15 THE COURT: The question you asked that was objected
16 to here was, Based on your experience, research, and training,
17 is the person doing the grooming always the recipient of the
18 sexual gratification?
19 For the reasons I've indicated, that is precluded by
20 the narrow basis on which I did preclude what they call
21 grooming by proxy. Again, I see there's a slight analytical
22 distinction between the question you asked and that theory, but
23 the question, I think -- and I see that she says no, that
24 wasn't how she understood it. But still for me, that testimony
25 was in aid of the next piece, which I excluded.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00017943
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document