Jeffrey S. Pagliuca

Jeffrey S. Pagliuca conducted defense examinations focused on whether witnesses could support the inferences the government sought from general expert testimony, household records, and recollections of events at Epstein's properties. On Day 4, he questioned Lisa Rocchio about the limits of grooming research and elicited that grooming is a pattern that cannot be reliably predicted prospectively. When redirect moved beyond his examination, he objected, and Judge Nathan sustained the scope objection.

With Juan Patricio Alessi, Pagliuca separated firsthand knowledge from documentary evidence. He questioned how Exhibit 606 came into existence, how multiple message pads were used, and Alessi's prior statements concerning theft, Jane, household supervision, and massage practices. Judge Nathan admitted Exhibit 606, reserved the Exhibit 52 issue during voir dire, and limited several attempted lines of impeachment during the resumed cross-examination.

Pagliuca also challenged Carolyn through earlier statements and filings and sought broader inquiry into psychiatric and drug history after those subjects arose on direct examination. The court limited some impeachment evidence while allowing selected complaint and interrogatory excerpts. On recross, he argued that asking whether Carolyn had been shown materials did not require disclosure of a privileged communication. His later questioning of Shawn tested the limits of caller-identification testimony and explored money and drug use, while his cross-examination of Nicole Hesse distinguished her firsthand knowledge and message-pad entries from entries made by others.

Across the trial, Pagliuca repeatedly contested the foundation, purpose, and scope of Exhibit 52. He argued that contact-book names were being used for their truth, objected to presenting the full book after only selected portions had been addressed, and opposed a proposed summary-witness comparison that the court ruled belonged in closing argument. The court ultimately admitted six stipulated pages for a limited purpose and restricted counsel from highlighting selected entries. After closing argument, Pagliuca renewed his position that the government had used the names substantively and sought a mistrial; the court overruled the objections and denied the request.

During the defense case on Day 12, Pagliuca used Jason Richards to establish a foundation for an FBI report of Carolyn's 2007 interview and to present details recorded from that account. Richards later described the report as an unconfirmed, nonverbatim summary, and Pagliuca addressed his recording practices on redirect. Pagliuca also examined Eva Andersson Dubin about her observations from 1983 to 1991 and reviewed redacted flight records after the court limited related questioning. He opposed the late disclosure and relevance of William Brown's DMV testimony, which the court allowed, and at the charging conference framed age and involvement as factual disputes rather than conscious avoidance.