Carolyn — Direct/Cross/Redirect/Recross
2,502 linesDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Good morning.
MS. COMEY: What's your first name?
MS. COMEY: Could you spell that for us please.
MS. COMEY: Leading up to this trial, Carolyn, did you ask to testify under just your first name to protect your privacy?
MS. COMEY: I'd like to ask you to please take a look at the binder in front of you. Could you please turn to Government Exhibit 11. Let us know when you're there.
MS. COMEY: Do you recognize that?
MS. COMEY: What is that?
JUDGE NATHAN: Sorry, Carolyn. If you could come closer to the microphone, please. A. My birth certificate.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I would ask that the jury be permitted to turn to Government Exhibit 11 in their binders, please.
JUDGE NATHAN: Which is admitted?
MS. COMEY: Which is admitted, yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Without objection?
MR. PAGLIUCA: No objection.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you. Jury, please turn to GX-11.
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, at the top of the page here, without saying it out loud, do you see the name at the very top?
MS. COMEY: Is that your full name?
MS. COMEY: And is the date of birth in the top right-hand corner your date of birth?
MS. COMEY: Thank you. You can set that aside. And your Honor, I'd ask that the jurors be permitted to put their binders back under their chairs.
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes. Thank you. Please do so, jury. Thank you.
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, where did you grow up?
MS. COMEY: And then did you move somewhere from New York?
MS. COMEY: And in what year did you move to Florida?
MS. COMEY: I'm going to ask you to speak into the microphone.
MS. COMEY: Thank you. Carolyn, what is the last kind of school you attended?
MS. COMEY: What is the last grade you attended before dropping out in middle school?
MS. COMEY: After you dropped out in seventh grade, did you ever go back to school?
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, have you used drugs in your life?
MS. COMEY: Have you been addicted to drugs in your life?
MS. COMEY: What drugs have you been addicted to?
MS. COMEY: I want to talk a little bit about when you were in middle school. Where did you go to middle school?
MS. COMEY: In what town is H. L. Watkins?
MS. COMEY: Is that in Florida?
MS. COMEY: When you were 14 years old, who lived at home with you?
MS. COMEY: Are your brothers older or younger than you?
MS. COMEY: What was your life like at home when you were 14 years old?
MS. COMEY: Why is that?
MS. COMEY: When you were between the ages of 14 and 16, how did you make money?
MS. COMEY: How did you first meet -- and when you say "Mr. Epstein," do you know his full name?
MS. COMEY: What's his full name?
MS. COMEY: How did you first meet Jeffrey Epstein?
MS. COMEY: What's the first name of the guy you were dating when you were 14?
MS. COMEY: Can you spell that for us?
MS. COMEY: How did you meet Shawn?
MS. COMEY: In West Palm Beach?
MS. COMEY: About how old were you when you first started dating Shawn?
MS. COMEY: About how old was Shawn when you first started dating him?
MS. COMEY: I'd like you to please turn back to the binder and pull out what's been marked for identification has Government Exhibit 20. Let us know when you're there.
MS. COMEY: Two zero, 20.
MS. COMEY: Is the name on that exhibit, without saying it out loud, Shawn's full name?
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, the government offers this exhibit under seal.
MR. PAGLIUCA: No objection.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you. GX-20 is admitted under seal to protect the identity of the third party and the witness.
(Government's Exhibit 20 received in evidence)
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, may we have the jurors please turn to this exhibit in their binders.
JUDGE NATHAN: They may. Please take out your binders. GX-20.
MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor. I think the jurors can put the binders back down.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Please do so, jury.
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, when you first met Shawn, how old did you tell him you were?
MS. COMEY: How, if at all, to your knowledge, did Shawn learn how old you actually were?
MS. COMEY: Did he come to your 14th birthday party?
MS. COMEY: And is that how he learned your actual age?
JUDGE NATHAN: I just ask again, Carolyn, please speak directly into the mic so everyone can hear you. Thank you.
MS. COMEY: How did Shawn lead you to meeting Jeffrey Epstein?
MS. COMEY: How did you meet Virginia?
MS. COMEY: About how old were you when you met Virginia?
MS. COMEY: Ms. Drescher, would you please pull up what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 113.
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, do you recognize the person on the screen in front of you?
MS. COMEY: Who is that?
MS. COMEY: Is that the same Virginia we were just talking about?
MS. COMEY: We can take that down. Thank you.
MS. COMEY: Who was Tony in relation to Virginia?
MS. COMEY: What would you, Shawn, Tony, and Virginia do together when you were 14 years old?
MS. COMEY: How do you remember Jeffrey Epstein first coming up with that group?
MS. COMEY: Did she tell you what you would need to do to make that money?
MS. COMEY: Before you ultimately went, did she tell you?
MS. COMEY: What did she tell you?
CAROLYN: That we were going to go to her friend's house who lived on Palm Beach Island, and I was going to meet one of her wealthy friends.
MS. COMEY: And do what?
MS. COMEY: How did you respond?
MS. COMEY: Why did you say okay?
MS. COMEY: About how old were you the first time you went to Jeffrey Epstein's house?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember about what time of year it was the year you were 14?
MS. COMEY: How did you get to Jeffrey Epstein's house that first time?
MS. COMEY: When you got to Jeffrey Epstein's house -- withdrawn. Where was Jeffrey Epstein's house?
MS. COMEY: What did the outside of the house look like that first day you went there?
MS. COMEY: Did you go there multiple times after that?
MS. COMEY: Did the color of the house change at some point?
MS. COMEY: To what?
MS. COMEY: That first day when you got to Jeffrey Epstein's house, who went inside?
MS. COMEY: What room did you walk into?
MS. COMEY: When you walked into the kitchen, what happened?
MS. COMEY: What did Ms. Maxwell look like?
MS. COMEY: Can you describe her.
MS. COMEY: How did you learn her name?
MS. COMEY: Did she say just her last name or both her first and her last name?
MS. COMEY: What did you call her?
MS. COMEY: Why did you call her Maxwell instead of using her first name?
MS. COMEY: When Maxwell greeted you in the kitchen, what, if anything, did Virginia say to Maxwell?
MS. COMEY: Did she say your name?
MS. COMEY: What did she say?
MS. COMEY: And what did Maxwell say?
MS. COMEY: What happened next?
CAROLYN: We walked up the stairs that were in the kitchen, and we passed a bunch of bedrooms and entered into Mr. Epstein's bedroom, into his bathroom area.
MS. COMEY: Can you describe the bathroom that you went into off of Mr. Epstein's bedroom.
CAROLYN: Yes. When you walk in, there is a sink to your right, there is a dresser to the left, there is a closet area, there is a toilet area, there is a steam room, and then there's a shower.
MS. COMEY: What, if any, seating do you remember?
MS. COMEY: After you went into that room with Virginia, what did Virginia show you?
MS. COMEY: Then what happened?
CAROLYN: We walked into the little closet area and she was pulling out the massage table. And I was looking at all the photos that were on the wall.
MS. COMEY: What else did Virginia show you, if anything?
MS. COMEY: And where was that?
MS. COMEY: After the massage table was set up, what did you and Virginia do next?
CAROLYN: Virginia had taken off her clothes and she asked me if I would be comfortable taking off mine. And I told her I would like to keep my bra and underwear on.
MS. COMEY: So at that point what was Virginia wearing?
MS. COMEY: And what were you wearing?
MS. COMEY: What happened next?
MS. COMEY: Then what happened?
MS. COMEY: While Mr. Epstein was face down on the massage table, what did you and Virginia do?
MS. COMEY: Then what happened?
MS. COMEY: What happened when Mr. Epstein turned over?
MS. COMEY: And what did you see Virginia and Mr. Epstein doing?
MS. COMEY: Where were you while Virginia and Mr. Epstein were having sex on the massage table?
MS. COMEY: Did Mr. Epstein touch you during this first massage?
MS. COMEY: After that ended, what happened next?
MS. COMEY: Where did the money come from?
MS. COMEY: In that same bathroom?
MS. COMEY: Who got money?
MS. COMEY: How much money did you get?
MS. COMEY: How much money did Virginia get?
MS. COMEY: What denominations were the bills?
MS. COMEY: After that first time, did you go back to Jeffrey Epstein's house with Virginia again?
MS. COMEY: Why not?
MS. COMEY: Why not?
MS. COMEY: And did you give her your telephone number?
MS. COMEY: Ms. Drescher, would you please pull up what's in evidence as Government Exhibit 115.
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, do you recognize the person in this photograph?
MS. COMEY: Who is that?
JUDGE NATHAN: I'm sorry, I need the witness to speak into the microphone.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you.
MS. COMEY: Now, can we please go to Government Exhibit 112, Ms. Drescher.
MS. COMEY: Do you recognize the person in this photograph?
MS. COMEY: Who is that?
MS. COMEY: Let's take that down please, Ms. Drescher.
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, in total, approximately how many times did you go over to Mr. Epstein's house to give him massages?
MS. COMEY: About how often did you go over to his house to provide those massages?
MS. COMEY: About how old were you the first time you went over to his house?
MS. COMEY: And about how old were you the last time you went over to his house?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember the exact details of every encounter you had at that house?
MS. COMEY: Do some of those details and events stand out more in your mind though?
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, I'd like to ask you -- go ahead and get a drink. Would you please pick up the binder again and turn to what's been marked for identification as Government Exhibit 104.
MS. COMEY: 104. Do you recognize that?
MS. COMEY: What is it?
MS. COMEY: Does this fairly and accurately depict what you looked like when you went to Jeffrey Epstein's house when you were 14 years old?
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, the government offers this exhibit under seal.
MR. PAGLIUCA: No objection.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you. GX-104 is admitted under seal to protect the anonymity of the witness who I've permitted to testify under her first name.
(Government's Exhibit 104 received in evidence)
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, may we please ask the jurors to pull out their binders and look at Government Exhibit 104.
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes. Please, jurors, take your binders. GX-104.
MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor. The jurors can set their binders aside.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Please do. Thank you.
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, how would you schedule times to go to Jeffrey Epstein's house for massages?
MS. COMEY: Would anyone else ever call?
MS. COMEY: Let me ask you some questions about that. During about what time period do you remember Maxwell being the person who would call to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein?
MS. COMEY: And then after that, who would call you to schedule your appointments?
MS. COMEY: Now, after Sarah started being the person to call you, did you still see Maxwell at Epstein's house?
MS. COMEY: Where would she be?
MS. COMEY: And you said that sometimes you would call to make appointments?
MS. COMEY: Why would you call?
MS. COMEY: What phone numbers would Maxwell and Sarah call you on in order to make massage appointments?
MS. COMEY: How did they get all of those numbers?
MS. COMEY: Why did you give extra numbers to Maxwell?
MS. COMEY: Was that your idea?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember any of those phone numbers?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember your mom's cell phone number?
MS. COMEY: Okay. But you don't remember your own phone number or Shawn's number?
MS. COMEY: This morning, Carolyn, did I ask you to write your mom's cell phone number down on a piece of paper?
MS. COMEY: Could you please turn now to what's been marked for identification as Government Exhibit 608 in your binder. Are you there?
MS. COMEY: Do you recognize that?
MS. COMEY: What is that?
MS. COMEY: Is that the phone number you wrote down on a piece of paper this morning?
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, the government offers this in evidence under seal.
MR. PAGLIUCA: No objection.
JUDGE NATHAN: GX-608 is admitted under seal to protect the anonymity of this witness.
(Government's Exhibit 608 received in evidence)
MS. COMEY: Thank you. You can set that aside, Carolyn.
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, what is your mother's first name?
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, when Maxwell called you to schedule appointments, what did she say to you?
CAROLYN: She would ask if I would be available at this time, sometimes because they would be out of town and be flying in.
MS. COMEY: During those times when Maxwell mentioned that they were flying in, who's the "they" she referred to?
MS. COMEY: And what did Maxwell say about where she and Mr. Epstein were during those conversations?
MS. COMEY: How would that come up?
CAROLYN: Well, they -- she said that they would be flying in from New York, could I be available at this time.
MS. COMEY: And when Sarah would call you to schedule an appointment, what would she say?
MS. COMEY: Were you ever present when your mom received a phone call that you later learned was from Maxwell?
MS. COMEY: What do you remember happening on those occasions?
MS. COMEY: And then what would happen?
MS. COMEY: Were you ever present when Shawn received a phone call on his phone --
MS. COMEY: -- from Maxwell? What happened?
MS. COMEY: About how many times do you remember Maxwell saying she was calling from New York?
MS. COMEY: Now, you mentioned that sometimes you would reach out to schedule appointments yourself; is that right?
MS. COMEY: And you mentioned that Shawn would tell you to go to these appointments, right?
MS. COMEY: Why were you reaching out to go to these appointments?
MS. COMEY: What were you doing with the money?
MS. COMEY: What drugs were you using?
CAROLYN: Marijuana, cocaine, alcohol, anything that could block out for me to go to the appointment.
MS. COMEY: Did you become addicted to drugs at some point while you were going over to Mr. Epstein's house?
MS. COMEY: What drugs did you become addicted to?
MS. COMEY: How did you get to Jeffrey Epstein's house for appointments in your home in West Palm Beach to Palm Beach?
CAROLYN: Sometimes it would be by a driver would be sent, or I would take a cab, or Shawn would use my mom's car and drop me off, and my mom has also dropped me off there.
MS. COMEY: Why couldn't you drive yourself?
MS. COMEY: When you got a cab or a car was sent for you, how did you know that those cars were on the way?
MS. COMEY: By who?
MS. COMEY: What would they say?
MS. COMEY: Did Shawn ever go inside Jeffrey Epstein's house when he drove you there?
MS. COMEY: Who, if anyone, did Shawn meet outside of Jeffrey Epstein's house when he went with you there?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. Lack of foundation, your Honor, under 602.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. COMEY: When you and Shawn were together at Jeffrey Epstein's house, did you ever see someone else?
MS. COMEY: Who did you see?
MS. COMEY: But when you were outside, did you ever see anyone?
MS. COMEY: How many times did you see Mr. Epstein when Shawn was with you?
MS. COMEY: What happened that one time?
MS. COMEY: That who owned?
MS. COMEY: Where did that conversation happen?
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, did you ever drive yourself to Jeffrey Epstein's house even though you didn't have a license?
MS. COMEY: About how many times?
MS. COMEY: When you went over to Jeffrey Epstein's house for massage appointments, where did you enter the house each time?
MS. COMEY: During the first few months when you were going over to that house for massages, who did you see when you first entered the kitchen?
MS. COMEY: What, if any, conversations do you remember having with Maxwell when you would meet her in the kitchen?
CAROLYN: She would just let me know that Mr. Epstein would be back, he was on a jog or he was -- he'd be back any moment; I could go upstairs and set up.
MS. COMEY: When you interacted with Maxwell, what, if any, conversations did you have with her about your family?
MS. COMEY: What did you tell Maxwell?
MS. COMEY: What, if any, conversations do you remember having with Maxwell about sexual abuse that you have had experienced in the past?
MS. COMEY: What conversations do you remember having with her about sexual abuse that you'd experienced?
CAROLYN: I remember telling her that I had been raped and molested by my grandfather starting at the age of four.
MS. COMEY: What, if any, conversations did you have with Maxwell about travel?
CAROLYN: I couldn't travel because I couldn't get a passport because I was too young. And my mom, no matter how messed up she was, there was no way I would be able to leave the country.
MS. COMEY: How did that topic come up?
MS. COMEY: Who invited you?
MS. COMEY: And did they invite you together in one conversation or in separate conversations?
MS. COMEY: When you were speaking with Maxwell about that, what did she say?
CAROLYN: She had asked if I ever traveled. And I told her I've been to New York, I used to live there, and just places I've been in the United States.
MS. COMEY: And then where did she invite you to?
MS. COMEY: And how did you respond when Maxwell invited you to the island?
CAROLYN: I told her that I was too young, and there is no way in hell my mom was going to let me leave the country.
MS. COMEY: Did you tell her how old you were?
MS. COMEY: What did you say?
MS. COMEY: After you told Maxwell you were 14, did she continue to call you to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein?
MS. COMEY: What, if any, conversations do you remember having with Maxwell about school?
CAROLYN: She had asked me if I had ever -- like, what I wanted to do. And I told her I wanted to become a massage therapist.
MS. COMEY: What, if any, conversations did you have with Maxwell about sex toys?
MS. COMEY: What, if any, conversations do you remember having with Maxwell about your bra and hip size?
CAROLYN: I was upstairs setting up the massage table. And at that point I was kind of comfortable because I had been there so many times, that at that point I was getting fully nude. And she came in and felt my boobs and my hips and my buttocks and said that -- that Mr. Epstein would -- that I had a great body for Mr. Epstein and his friends.
MS. COMEY: How did that relate to your breast and hip size?
MS. COMEY: And just so we're clear about who she is?
MS. COMEY: You said she felt your boobs. Did she touch you?
MS. COMEY: Where?
MS. COMEY: And where did that happen?
MS. COMEY: After that, did she leave the massage room? You have to say the answer.
MS. COMEY: And then who came in?
MS. COMEY: During each massage appointment at Jeffrey Epstein's house, after you went into the kitchen, where would you go from there?
MS. COMEY: In what room did you set up the massage table?
MS. COMEY: In whose bathroom?
MS. COMEY: Is that the same bathroom you described for us earlier?
MS. COMEY: When you first went into the massage room, what did you do first?
CAROLYN: I would -- well, sometimes the massage table was already set up, and all I would have to do is put the towel on it. And sometimes I would have to open the closet door and pull it out and set it up.
MS. COMEY: After you set up the massage table, what would you do with your clothing?
MS. COMEY: At first when you were first going over to that house, what would you wear during the massages?
MS. COMEY: Did that change at some point?
MS. COMEY: What did it change to?
MS. COMEY: After -- withdrawn. Other than Jeffrey Epstein, who else saw you fully naked in the massage room?
MS. COMEY: We'll talk about them in a minute. How many times approximately did Maxwell see you fully naked in the massage room?
MS. COMEY: Was one of those the time when she touched your breasts?
MS. COMEY: Did she touch you the other two times that you can remember?
MS. COMEY: After Maxwell saw you naked in the massage room, did she continue calling you to schedule massage appointments with Jeffrey Epstein?
MS. COMEY: About how old were you when Maxwell saw you naked in the massage room and touched your breasts?
MS. COMEY: So were you 14, almost 15?
MS. COMEY: Did anyone ever photograph you while you were at Jeffrey Epstein's house?
MS. COMEY: Who photographed you?
MS. COMEY: How did Sarah come to photograph you?
CAROLYN: She had called me and asked -- well, she had said Mr. -- she called and said she was calling in regards to Mr. Epstein; and that I would get paid five to $600 if she could take pictures of me.
MS. COMEY: How did you respond?
MS. COMEY: Where were those pictures taken?
MS. COMEY: What were you wearing in those pictures?
MS. COMEY: Who took those pictures?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember anyone else being around at that time?
MS. COMEY: During the massage appointments, after you set up the massage table and got undressed, who would come inside the room?
MS. COMEY: After Mr. Epstein came in the room, for the first approximately 45 minutes in the room, what would you do?
MS. COMEY: How would he be lying down?
MS. COMEY: While you were massaging Mr. Epstein, what, if any, conversations did you have?
MS. COMEY: What did you tell him about your family, if anything?
MS. COMEY: And what did you tell him about sexual abuse you had experienced in the past?
MS. COMEY: And what, if any, conversations did you have with him about travel?
CAROLYN: He had also asked me a couple of times if I can travel. And I told him there is no way that my mom's going to let me because I was too young.
MS. COMEY: In those conversations, did you tell Jeffrey Epstein how old you were?
MS. COMEY: What did you say?
MS. COMEY: After each massage, what were you paid?
MS. COMEY: Usually where would the money be after each massage?
MS. COMEY: Did anyone ever hand you money?
MS. COMEY: About how much money do you remember Ms. Maxwell handing you after you engaged in a sexualized massage with Jeffrey Epstein?
MS. COMEY: What denominations were the bills?
MS. COMEY: Other than money, what gifts, if any, did you receive from Jeffrey Epstein?
MS. COMEY: How did you get that lingerie?
MS. COMEY: Where did you receive a FedEx package?
MS. COMEY: In what town was your home?
MS. COMEY: Is that the home where you lived with your mom and your younger brothers?
MS. COMEY: Did you notice the return address from those packages?
MS. COMEY: What was it?
MS. COMEY: Any reason that stands out in your mind?
CAROLYN: Yeah. Because I was born in New York, so -- and also I knew that he had a home here in New York.
MS. COMEY: What was inside those packages?
MS. COMEY: How did Mr. Epstein get your address as far as you know?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection, your Honor. Lack of foundation.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. COMEY: Did you give your address to anyone?
MS. COMEY: Who?
MS. COMEY: Why did you give your address to Maxwell?
CAROLYN: Because Jeffrey Epstein wanted to send me some items. I wasn't sure what the items were going to be.
MS. COMEY: And so did she ask for your address?
MS. COMEY: And did you give her your address?
MS. COMEY: Other than the lingerie, did you receive any other gifts?
CAROLYN: Yes. A massage book for dummies, because I wanted to be a massage therapist; and concert tickets to Incubus.
MS. COMEY: Other than Virginia, were there ever any other females in the room with you when you were massaging Jeffrey Epstein?
MS. COMEY: How did those other females end up in the room?
MS. COMEY: With who?
MS. COMEY: Did you ever bring friends to Jeffrey's house? You have to say the answer.
MS. COMEY: About how many friends did you bring to Jeffrey Epstein's house?
MS. COMEY: What are the names of some of the friends you remember bringing? First names.
(Continued on next page)
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: About how old were they when you brought them over?
MS. COMEY: How old were you when you brought Amanda?
MS. COMEY: And so how old was Amanda?
MS. COMEY: And how old were you when you brought Tatum?
MS. COMEY: And how old were you when you brought Julie?
MS. COMEY: Why did you bring friends to Jeffrey Epstein's house?
CAROLYN: He asked me if I had any friends that were my age or younger, and I told him I didn't hang out with younger people, but I do have some friends I can ask.
MS. COMEY: Do you remember anyone else asking you to bring friends?
MS. COMEY: When you brought your friends over to Jeffrey's house, where did you enter the house with them?
MS. COMEY: Where did you go next?
MS. COMEY: And after the massage ended, what were you and the friend paid?
MS. COMEY: In what denominations?
MS. COMEY: Why did you get extra?
MS. COMEY: About how long did each massage with Jeffrey Epstein last?
MS. COMEY: After that first 45 minutes, what happened each time?
MS. COMEY: During how many of the massages you gave Jeffrey Epstein did he masturbate?
MS. COMEY: During how many of the massages you gave Jeffrey Epstein did he touch your breasts?
MS. COMEY: During how many of the massages you gave Jeffrey Epstein did he touch your buttocks?
MS. COMEY: Where else, if anywhere, did Jeffrey Epstein touch you during these massages?
CAROLYN: He tried one time to use like a vibrating thing on me, and I immediately told him I'm not comfortable with that.
MS. COMEY: And did he stop?
MS. COMEY: Can you describe the vibrating thing that he tried to put on your vagina?
MS. COMEY: Like a penis?
MS. COMEY: Did he actually touch that vibrator onto your vagina?
MS. COMEY: How did every massage you ever gave Jeffrey Epstein end?
MS. COMEY: Were there ever massages you provided Jeffrey Epstein where nothing sexual happened?
MS. COMEY: During the massages when you brought friends, did sex acts happen?
MS. COMEY: And where, if anywhere, did Jeffrey Epstein touch you and your friends during those massages?
MS. COMEY: Did Jeffrey ever bring anyone into the room?
MS. COMEY: Who did he bring into the room?
CAROLYN: On two separate occasions, he had pushed the button on the phone and a girl came in that was already fully nude.
MS. COMEY: How many times did that happen?
MS. COMEY: I want to talk about those times. Had you ever met them before?
MS. COMEY: Do you know their names?
MS. COMEY: Let's talk about the first one. What did she look like?
CAROLYN: She was slender and she had blond -- long blond hair and she had a really strong accent.
MS. COMEY: What happened when this first female came into the massage room with you and Jeffrey Epstein?
MS. COMEY: And turning to the second female, what did she look like?
MS. COMEY: And what happened when she came into the room with you and Jeffrey Epstein?
CAROLYN: She came in nude and Jeffrey penetrated me a couple times and I told him I wasn't comfortable. So he had sex with the model and she performed oral sex on me.
MS. COMEY: Just to be clear, did Jeffrey Epstein penetrate your vagina with his penis?
MS. COMEY: And then when you said you weren't comfortable, did he stop?
MS. COMEY: What were you doing with the money that you made going to Jeffrey Epstein's house?
MS. COMEY: Was there ever a time, Carolyn, when you took a break from going over to Jeffrey Epstein's house?
MS. COMEY: About when was that?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember how old you were when you and Sean went to Georgia?
MS. COMEY: While you took that break from going over to Jeffrey Epstein's house, what major life event, if any, happened?
MS. COMEY: Did you have a baby?
MS. COMEY: What month and year did you have a baby?
MS. COMEY: What is the father of your son's first name, just his first name?
MS. COMEY: After you had your son, your baby, did you ever go back to Jeffrey Epstein's house?
MS. COMEY: About how many times?
MS. COMEY: I'm asking about after you had the baby.
CAROLYN: Okay. I had gone back there more than, like, four or five times, and he asked me if I had any younger friends and I said no. And that's when I realized I was too old.
MS. COMEY: Why did you go back after you had your baby?
CAROLYN: Because I needed the money because I was so young when I had my son and I needed the money to buy stuff for him.
MS. COMEY: Why did you stop going to Jeffrey Epstein's house?
MS. COMEY: How old were you?
MS. COMEY: May I have a moment, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes.
MS. COMEY: Carolyn?
MS. COMEY: After you stopped seeing Jeffrey Epstein, did you continue using drugs?
MS. COMEY: What drugs did you use?
MS. COMEY: Were you addicted to both of those drugs?
MS. COMEY: Have you ever been arrested as a result of your drug use?
MS. COMEY: In 2011, were you arrested for possessing cocaine?
MS. COMEY: What happened that led to you getting arrested?
MS. COMEY: Why did you do that?
CAROLYN: Because I'm an idiot. I handed him the drugs because I was hoping I wouldn't get arrested.
MS. COMEY: Had you been pulled over in a car?
MS. COMEY: Did you ultimately plead guilty to felony possession of cocaine as a result?
MS. COMEY: What was your sentence?
MS. COMEY: What's that?
MS. COMEY: In 2013, were you arrested for possessing stolen property?
MS. COMEY: What happened that led to that arrest?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection. Hearsay.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. COMEY: Did you pawn an Xbox?
MS. COMEY: Was it your Xbox?
MS. COMEY: Did you tell the pawnbroker it was your Xbox?
MS. COMEY: Did you ultimately plead guilty to felony possession of stolen property as a result?
MS. COMEY: And did you plead guilty to felony false verification of ownership to a pawnbroker?
MS. COMEY: What was your sentence?
MS. COMEY: After serving that sentence, did you go to drug treatment?
MS. COMEY: And after serving that sentence, did you go to therapy?
MS. COMEY: What medications do you currently take?
MS. COMEY: What is methadone for?
MS. COMEY: So is that to help you with your opioid addiction?
MS. COMEY: What's the Xanax for?
CAROLYN: For all the anxiety I have of thinking my daughters are going to be trafficked or stolen or kidnapped from me.
MS. COMEY: And you mentioned two other types of medication. What were those for?
CAROLYN: My Vyvanse is to stay focused and my doxepine is for the schizophrenia so I don't freak out if I -- because I am scared that my kids are going to get kidnapped.
MS. COMEY: But you mentioned schizophrenia. Do you have particular symptoms?
MS. COMEY: What symptoms?
MS. COMEY: And do you hear voices telling you that someone's going to take your children away?
MS. COMEY: Can you tell the difference between those voices and reality?
MS. COMEY: How is that?
MS. COMEY: Do any of those medications affect your ability to remember what has happened to you?
MS. COMEY: Do any of them affect your ability to tell the difference between the truth and a lie?
MS. COMEY: About how often do you speak to Sean now?
MS. COMEY: When did you break up?
MS. COMEY: Since breaking up with Sean, have you had any conversations with him about what happened with Jeffrey Epstein?
MS. COMEY: Have you had any conversations with Sean about your testimony here today?
MS. COMEY: In 2007, were you interviewed by the FBI about Jeffrey Epstein?
MS. COMEY: During that interview, did you tell the FBI that you noticed an older lady with short black hair and an accent at Epstein's residence the first time you went there with Virginia?
MS. COMEY: Who was that?
MS. COMEY: During your interview with the FBI in 2007, did you mention the other details of your interactions with Maxwell?
MS. COMEY: Why not?
MS. COMEY: Who was the focus of that interview?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection, your Honor. Speculation.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. COMEY: Who did the FBI ask you questions about in 2007?
MS. COMEY: After you stopped seeing Jeffrey Epstein when you were about 18 years old, how did you make money?
MS. COMEY: When you worked for the escort service, did you have sex with men for money?
MS. COMEY: In or about 2009, did you bring a lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen?
MS. COMEY: Why did you sue Jeffrey Epstein?
MS. COMEY: Why did you sue Sarah?
CAROLYN: Because she knew what was going on and she was -- she was older than me, so she was an adult. She knew what was happening.
MS. COMEY: And what else did she do?
MS. COMEY: Without getting into the substance of any conversations, who made the decision about who to sue in that lawsuit?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection, your Honor. 602 without any further foundation.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, did you hire a lawyer in order to bring this lawsuit?
MS. COMEY: Without telling me the substance, did you have conversations with that lawyer about who to sue?
MS. COMEY: And ultimately, after those conversations, based on your understanding, who decided who would be sued in this lawsuit?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Objection, your Honor. Lack of foundation.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
JUDGE NATHAN: I sustained. It means don't answer. Jury will disregard.
MS. COMEY: In 2009, were you deposed as a part of that lawsuit?
MS. COMEY: During that deposition, were you asked about your time working for the escort service?
MS. COMEY: Did you lie during your deposition, Carolyn?
MS. COMEY: What did you lie about?
MS. COMEY: What did you say during the deposition?
MS. COMEY: Did you say that you worked for the escort service but didn't sleep with anyone?
MS. COMEY: Was that true?
MS. COMEY: Why did you lie about that?
MS. COMEY: May I have a moment, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes.
MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor. Ms. Drescher, could we please pull up, just for the Court and the witness, 3505-403 at page 1.
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, what was the date of your deposition in the lawsuit?
MS. COMEY: Can we now please turn in this document, Ms. Drescher, to page 36. I want to go to deposition page 137, lines 3 through 6. Your Honor, I would like to offer this and read it into the record pursuant to 801(d)(1)(B).
MR. PAGLIUCA: Lines 3 through 6?
MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I don't understand what this is being offered for, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: You'll confer.
MS. COMEY: We've conferred, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Mr. Pagliuca, do you have an objection?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, your Honor --
JUDGE NATHAN: Just objection or no.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. Can we approach?
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
(Continued on next page)
(At the sidebar)
MR. PAGLIUCA: This is apparently being offered as purported prior consistent statement?
JUDGE NATHAN: Right.
MR. PAGLIUCA: The problem is, when read in context, which really starts at line 20 on the page above and goes through probably line 16 on the next page, we're simply just parsing out two lines.
JUDGE NATHAN: She can read the whole thing.
MS. COMEY: That's fine, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay.
MS. COMEY: Starting at which line?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'd say 136, line 23.
MS. COMEY: That's an answer.
MR. PAGLIUCA: So the question is going to be line 20.
MS. COMEY: Line 20 through line 6.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
(Continued on next page)
(In open court)
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay, Ms. Comey.
MS. COMEY: Ms. Drescher, I would like to pull up the page just a little earlier, page 136, line 20, and we're going to go through page 137, line 6.
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, do you see that in front of you?
MS. COMEY: My question is, were you asked the following questions and did you give the following answers. I'm going to read this aloud. Just listen and read along with me. "Q. You would agree with me that you cannot recall the specifics of each visit that you had at Mr. Epstein's home? "A. I don't remember the times and dates, but I can tell you everything that happened while I was there. "Q. In your complaint in each count, you allege that you went to Mr. Epstein's at his request? "A. Uh-huh. "Q. In fact, Mr. Epstein himself did not contact you on each occasion and request you to come, did he? "A. No, he would have Sarah or Maxwell call me." Did you give that testimony in December 2009, Carolyn?
MS. COMEY: I'd like to go now, please, to page 33 of the same document.
JUDGE NATHAN: Page and line numbers, please.
MS. COMEY: We'll be doing deposition page 124, lines 8 through 20.
JUDGE NATHAN: Just a moment. Mr. Pagliuca.
MR. PAGLIUCA: That's fine, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Go ahead.
MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Starting with line 8 on page 124: "Q. And for what reason were you placing calls to try to get Mr. Epstein? "A. To go over there to see him. "Q. Were you seeking the opportunity to go over and massage him and get paid? "A. Yes. "Q. And on these occasions that you called to see if you could go over there and give him a massage, did you talk to him or did you talk to others at his house? "A. I talked to Sarah or Maxwell. I have also talked to -- I don't know if it's the cook or somebody else that was there that took phone messages." Carolyn, did you give that testimony in December 2009?
MS. COMEY: Other than those two exchanges we just talked about, were you asked any other questions about Maxwell during your 2009 deposition?
MS. COMEY: How did your lawsuit against Jeffrey and Sarah end in 2009?
MS. COMEY: Did you settle the case?
MS. COMEY: Do you remember how much money you received?
MS. COMEY: Can you approximate for us?
MS. COMEY: Have you participated in a victim compensation fund for victims of Jeffrey Epstein?
MS. COMEY: What did you do to submit a claim to that fund for the fund?
MS. COMEY: Did you put in an application to the fund?
MS. COMEY: Did you receive an award from the fund?
MS. COMEY: Do you know exactly how much the fund awarded you?
MS. COMEY: About how much do you remember it being?
MS. COMEY: Did that money come from the estate of Jeffrey Epstein?
MS. COMEY: Has that money already been wired to you?
MS. COMEY: Are you waiting on any other money from the fund?
MS. COMEY: As part of receiving that money, did you have to sign a waiver agreeing not to sue any of Jeffrey Epstein's employees?
MS. COMEY: To your understanding, can you sue Maxwell?
MS. COMEY: To your understanding, will the jury's verdict in this case affect the award you received from that fund?
MS. COMEY: Do you have any financial stake in the outcome of this case?
MS. COMEY: May I have a moment, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
MS. COMEY: Nothing further.
JUDGE NATHAN: We have about 15 minutes before lunch. Mr. Pagliuca, you may begin your cross.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Good afternoon, Carolyn. Carolyn, you had an acquaintance named Virginia Roberts that was a friend of yours in 2002, approximately; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you met her through your then boyfriend, Sean; is that correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Sean was a friend of the man that Virginia Roberts was living with, a fellow named Tony; is that correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And Tony and your boyfriend, Sean, were older than you; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: About four years older than you; is that right?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And Ms. Roberts and Tony had an apartment together; is that right?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you had been to their apartment; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: You and Sean and Virginia Roberts and Tony hung out at that apartment and smoked marijuana, for example?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Drank alcohol; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Did other drugs?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Now, as I understand it, you were at a party when Virginia Roberts approached you first about making $300; is that correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you remember speaking to the FBI in 2007?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And that was the first time that you talked to any law enforcement about Mr. Epstein; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And I'll direct --
MR. PAGLIUCA: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
MR. PAGLIUCA: If you could turn to tab 5 in that binder that I just handed you, the big one, which is 3505-005, page 1.
MR. PAGLIUCA: The big binder that I just gave you.
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Comey, do you have it?
MS. COMEY: I do. Thank you, your Honor.
MR. PAGLIUCA: It's the first tab, it's got a 5 on it.
MR. PAGLIUCA: The first page.
MR. PAGLIUCA: We can display this electronically if it's easier, your Honor.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I want to direct your -- do you have the document?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Page 1, paragraph 2.
MR. PAGLIUCA: The fifth line down, do you see where it starts, "Virginia approached Carolyn at a party and asked her if she would like to make $300." Do you see that?
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, may we approach? Actually, may I confer with counsel?
JUDGE NATHAN: You may confer.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Carolyn, directing your attention to that paragraph, do you see that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Where it says that, "Virginia approached Carolyn at a party and asked her if she would like to make $300." Do you see that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Is that what you told the FBI in 2007?
MR. PAGLIUCA: The FBI got it wrong?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Did Virginia explain to you that you could make $300 by providing a man in Palm Beach with a massage?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And the friend you were meeting was older; is that correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Now, when Roberts approached you about making this $500, Ms. Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell was not there; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: $300. Ms. Maxwell was not there; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And Ms. Maxwell was not involved in this conversation that you had with Ms. Roberts about making this $300; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: During your conversation with Ms. Roberts, she told you that you could make this $300 by massaging this older man; is that right?
CAROLYN: No. She said we were going to meet one of her friends and -- I'm sorry. Repeat the question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: She told you that you could make money by massaging an older man; is that correct?
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, can we just classify if Mr. Pagliuca is asking her about a document or her memory as she sits here today.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sure. You're asking about her memory?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: Start with that question.
JUDGE NATHAN: You can close the binder.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Ms. Roberts told you that you could make money by massaging an older man; is that correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: If you could go back to that same exhibit, 005 at page 1, paragraph 2.
MR. PAGLIUCA: The last line, isn't it true that you told the FBI, "Virginia explained that Carolyn could make $300 by providing a man in Palm Beach with a massage." Isn't it true, you told them at that time?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Paragraph 2, the last sentence.
MR. PAGLIUCA: So you're saying you didn't tell that to the FBI in 2007 when they interviewed you?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Carolyn, I'm just asking you a very simple question, are you denying telling the FBI, in August of 2007, that Virginia explained that Carolyn could make $300 by providing a man in Palm Beach with a massage?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And that's what you told the FBI?
MR. PAGLIUCA: It's also true that Ms. Roberts told you that you could make a lot of money real fast; correct?
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, are we talking about a document or her memory?
JUDGE NATHAN: Can you clarify the timeframe of your question, both as to whether you're asking about her current memory, and if so, what time you're asking her to recall.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm asking about current memory, unless I refer the witness to the document, your Honor.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, it might be helpful to have the witness set the document aside.
MR. PAGLIUCA: That's fine.
JUDGE NATHAN: Close the binder, please.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Might be easier if we use the screen.
JUDGE NATHAN: Do that.
MR. PAGLIUCA: That's fine.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Carolyn, Ms. Roberts told you, you recall, this first time that you could make a lot of money real fast; isn't that true?
MR. PAGLIUCA: If we can show the witness 005, page 1, third paragraph, first sentence, please.
MR. PAGLIUCA: It's also true, Carolyn, that Ms. Roberts instructed you to dress sexy; is that correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Isn't it also true that Ms. Roberts instructed you that if you didn't like something, to let her know; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: She also told you, before you went over to Mr. Epstein's, that you might have to remove your shirt and pants, but could keep your underwear on; is that correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: We can take this down while we're asking questions.
CAROLYN: She had -- she asked me if I wanted to go with her to meet a friend of hers who lived on Palm Beach and I would have to dress provocatively. so she dressed me and said that we could make money. So she drove me there and when we got there is when she told me that she would massage Mr. Epstein with me so I would not feel uncomfortable.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. My question is, before you went over there, Ms. Roberts told you that you might have to remove your shirt and pants, but you could keep your underwear on. Is that true or not?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Before you went over there, isn't it also true that Ms. Roberts told you to say that you were 17 or 18?
MR. PAGLIUCA: That's not true; is that your testimony?
MR. PAGLIUCA: If we can show the witness the same document at paragraph 4.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you see on the last two lines there, "Carolyn was previously instructed by Virginia to tell Epstein she was 17." Do you see that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Is that what you told the FBI in August of 2007?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm not asking you what you told Mr. Epstein, I'm asking you first, that's what Ms. Roberts told you and, at first, you said no, and now you're saying yes?
MR. PAGLIUCA: We can take that down.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you remember Ms. Roberts saying that he, Epstein, was a friend of hers, we can go there, you can give him a massage, and he will pay. Do you remember that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Now, I want to talk about the timeframe that you've testified about. Isn't it true that the date you first went to Epstein's house at the invitation of Roberts was in May or June of 2002?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Ms. Comey showed you your deposition testimony from December 2009. Do you recall that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And that was in connection with your civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Let's show the witness 3505-043 at page 33 at deposition page 125, lines 23 through 24 through 126, line 2.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you have that? Isn't it true that, under oath in August of 2009, you were asked the question: "Q. All right. So for purposes --
JUDGE NATHAN: I'm sorry. It's small again.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Can we enlarge that, please.
JUDGE NATHAN: Can we get the page and line numbers that you intend to read.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Certainly, your Honor. So we'll start at the bottom, which is page 33, deposition page 125, lines 23 through 25 on that page, over to page 126, line 1, and we'll continue down to line 10, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Isn't it true, Carolyn, that, under oath, you were asked the question: "Q. All right. So for purposes of this case, the total period of time that you had any interaction with Mr. Epstein was between May of '02 and August of '03. "A. Uh-huh."
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you see that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And then if we go to page 126, lines 1 through 10 is the next page --
JUDGE NATHAN: Could you pull up the mic, Mr. Pagliuca.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. And then there is another question: "Q. That is another way of saying it is the first time you went, is May of '02, and the last time was August of '03? "A. Yeah." Do you see that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And that was your testimony under oath?
MR. PAGLIUCA: In 2009; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And then you were then asked the question: "Q. Didn't know Mr. Epstein at all prior to May of '02 and had no contact with him after August of '03? "A. Correct." Is that right?
MR. PAGLIUCA: So that was your deposition testimony under oath in 2009; is that right?
MR. PAGLIUCA: We can take that down.
MR. PAGLIUCA: You recall that Virginia Roberts was 18 when you first met her; is that correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you don't recall the exact date, but sometime in May or June of '02 after this conversation is when you went to Mr. Epstein's house; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. You don't recall the exact date, but sometime after you had this conversation with Virginia Roberts in May or June of '02 is when you went to Mr. Epstein's house; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you had never been to the house before; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: You never met Mr. Epstein before; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: You didn't even know the name of the person that you were going to meet; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Before you got there, you didn't even know the name of the person that you were going to meet; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And it is Roberts who arranged this meeting with Mr. Epstein; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, it was just you and her that went; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And she drove; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And she had a white car. Do you recall that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: She picked you up at your house; right?
MR. PAGLIUCA: How did you get there?
CAROLYN: We were at her house for the first time, not a party, and it was only me, Sean, Tony, and Virginia, and she dressed me provocatively and that's when we went to Mr. Epstein's home.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. She knew where to go; right?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And she drove the two of you there; is that right?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And it took about 30 minutes or so to get there; is that fair?
MR. PAGLIUCA: She parked the car; right?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And then you and she walked to the front door; is that correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: You walked to a door; right?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. You went inside; right?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Now, this is approximately 19 years ago is what we're talking about here today; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you had never been inside this house before; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I don't think I did.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And that's the first time you were inside; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: You had never met anyone who worked there before; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you went inside and you were taken upstairs by Virginia Roberts; correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Mr. Pagliuca, we're going to break here for lunch.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Members of the jury, you have your lunch. We'll resume in about an hour. Thank you so much.
(Continued on next page)
(Jury not present)
JUDGE NATHAN: The witness may step down and break for lunch.
(Witness excused) Everyone may be seated. Okay, matters to take up before the break?
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. During the morning break, we had an opportunity to speak with the witness identified as Brian. I've provided a copy of the notes from that conversation to defense counsel when we came back from the break along with a text message that Brian provided us a copy with. I'm happy to -- we haven't had a chance to stamp them yet with 3500 numbers, but I'm happy to provide a copy to the Court.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MOE: Besides that, is there a particular time when the Court would like to take up that particular issue and the other issue that we addressed at sidebar?
JUDGE NATHAN: Let's discuss this now since that goes to the defense's at least prior request was the exclusion of his testimony. So I'll hear from you on that, if you're prepared to be heard from that now or we break and then I hear from you.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, we'd be happy to take this up after the break, perhaps in order to provide defense counsel an opportunity to review those further and to confer on this issue. I just wanted to alert the Court that we had run this issue down and disclosed that matter and wanted to promptly alert the Court about that.
JUDGE NATHAN: So Ms. Menninger, the suggestion is we all look at the copy of the notes, I think we resume in about 30 minutes to address the issue.
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. I received it right as testimony was beginning, so I have not studied them. If your Honor would like to take an additional 10 minutes, I can try to do some research, but if your Honor is just wanting to address the content of the note --
JUDGE NATHAN: My suggestion is we all look at the contents of the notes, do some research, and resume in 30 minutes. How is that?
MS. MENNINGER: I will do my best, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: It's all we all can do. Do you want to give a 3500 stamp or --
MS. MOE: Your Honor, I would suggest that we hand up the printed copy now and, during the break, we can stamp it and send an email copy to chambers.
JUDGE NATHAN: That's fine.
JUDGE NATHAN: So it's 12:55. We'll resume in 30 minutes to discuss this. Assuming we're going forward with this witness's testimony, we'll take up, at sidebar, the issue regarding a question that the defense is interested in that implicates some privacy issues. Correct?
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: We'll meet in 30. Thank you.
(Recess)
(Continued on next page) A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 1:40 P.M.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. We'll take up the question of the communication between the brother of Jane and Jane.
MR. ROHRBACH: Yes, your Honor. During the break, the government did find some cases. But we also learned toward the end of the break that there are a small number of additional text messages. The government's view at this point is that it makes sense for us to fully run down and make sure we have identified the universe of text messages. And we're willing to not call Brian until tomorrow morning to give the parties an opportunity to understand all the facts and provide an analysis of the law. And so my understanding from talking to Ms. Menninger is that the defense doesn't object to allowing us to brief this issue tonight and call Brian and address it tomorrow morning.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. As long as the factual record is still undeveloped, I don't think it makes sense to start applying the law to those facts. But I repeat my request that there be an actual under-oath representation by this witness about the communications rather than dribbling out information.
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, I don't know if we'll need an under oath prior to his testimony. Certainly it can be fully explored in your cross-examination, which is under oath. But I do think in advance of that, we need a full understanding which I think includes making sure you have every text and email communication. I would think you need to have an interview with Jane, as well, to see if you're getting the same information from her. And I think you need to make sure that there are no other conduits of information regarding Jane's testimony to the brother.
MR. ROHRBACH: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. And I've started to look at the law too. I think it's unlikely we're going to get to a breach of the text of the rule. I think my hypo about if somebody passed the transcript would certainly go to a violation of the spirit of the rule and not the text. And there may be some further version of full communication of her testimony, especially a witness who's being put on solely to provide prior consistent statements. I don't think the government did anything wrong. I'm a little shocked that this wasn't fully drilled into these witnesses just as a matter of best practice. I understand from the notes that it was communicated to the witnesses not to speak to other witnesses, but somehow this witness didn't understand that to mean his sister. But here we are.
MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, on that point, we would just say that the notes from today reflect that the witness recalls having been instructed by the government not to discuss his testimony with his sister. Of course, it can be very difficult not to talk about your life with your family.
JUDGE NATHAN: Right. That would be the kind of thing, I would think, best practices would say, Look, I know this is difficult. This is important. I imagine that is a conversation that many government lawyers have with witnesses.
MR. ROHRBACH: Yes, your Honor. And my understanding is that we did have that conversation.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Then it may be a little hard to square that that conversation was had with the statement that it was unclear that this was a transgression. There's some mismatch there. So you need to run a full investigation. We'll have those facts produced to the defense by what time?
MR. ROHRBACH: We'll be working on it through the afternoon today. We will do our best to have disclosed as much as we know by the end of the court day. Understanding the breadth of the investigation the Court wants, it may take longer to complete all of --
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, you should think about whether there is anything else worth pursuing to make sure that the Court and both sides have a full factual record.
MR. ROHRBACH: We will certainly give that thought.
JUDGE NATHAN: And then, as I say, I think once we have that, my quick look at the case law is that I'm very unlikely to exclude, unless there was some knowing and full violation of the sequestration spirit, if details of -- significant details of Jane's testimony. But in the absence of that, I think what we have is ripe grounds for cross-examination with an opportunity for the defense to have at it.
MR. ROHRBACH: Yes, your Honor.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor I looked at some recent case law, and I imagine your Honor has seen similar cases. But one was Judge Engelmayer's decision in Teman. And there are some significant reasons why this case is much different than the decision he reached in that case, including the fact that that was a conversation between the government and a witness rather than -- he distinguished the other cases, which were a witness speaking to another witness.
JUDGE NATHAN: There was no order in place for witnesses not to speak. It could have been requested, I suppose. It wasn't requested. I didn't put one in place. I never have. And the reason is because if witnesses speak to each other, that's going to come out on cross, and boy is that going to look bad for the witnesses. So I think that's probably where we are. I have looked at Teman. I looked at the rule. We'll keep looking at cases once we have the full factual record. But it seems to me we're likely to be at a point where we have the factual record. There's no additional record that would lead to exclusion, and so we'll do what we need to do. A hearing, an order, only to prepare further for what's going to happen is likely not necessarily. I don't see any law that supports that. But we'll get the full factual record and you'll brief it. So I would like -- if this witness is going to testify tomorrow, I think the government needs to provide the defense the results of a full factual investigation by 6 p.m. And then, Ms. Menninger, when would you like to brief the issue?
MS. MENNINGER: By 9 p.m., your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. By 9 p.m. And then let's say -- Mr. Rohrbach?
MR. ROHRBACH: I apologize. By 9 p.m. By midnight. I know that's late for the Court. That would be three hours for each side to write a brief.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MR. ROHRBACH: Thank you, your Honor. Just one other point on this witness, your Honor. We understand that this witness is also a subject of a defense subpoena. And so the government would just like to know whether, in light of the defense's motion to preclude his testimony for this reason, he's still under defense subpoena.
JUDGE NATHAN: I suppose they might want to know the result of that motion first.
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Right?
MR. ROHRBACH: Yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. In other words, let's put it this way: If I grant your motion, do you intend to call the brother?
MS. MENNINGER: It seems highly unlikely, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: But, your Honor, two very quick factual issues. One is you may recall that when we began at the final pretrial conference on November 23rd, we specifically requested permission to share Dr. Rocchio's testimony with our two experts because we believed that this issue precluded otherwise witnesses listening in or finding out about the testimony of other witnesses, one. The second point is --
JUDGE NATHAN: And I said talk it out, confer, and then brief me if you have disagreement. I received no briefing.
MS. MENNINGER: I think there was no objection to that process, your Honor.
MR. ROHRBACH: There was no objection.
MS. MENNINGER: And then the second point is when Jane was released from the stand and the government asked for permission to speak with her about logistical matters, I said at that time, So long as she's admonished that she's not to speak to other witnesses; and they said, Of course. That was a brief sidebar conversation that was had. So just to the extent your Honor has brought up the fact that there wasn't an order specifically saying witnesses aren't to speak to one another, I certainly thought it was implied in the course and conduct of what had occurred and the sequestration order generally.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. You'll brief it.
MR. ROHRBACH: Yes, we'll brief it, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. So I suppose that we can deal then in the afternoon or tomorrow with the related sub question of an area that the defense seeks to cross the witness on.
MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. Ms. Moe and I spoke briefly. We assumed, I think, as your Honor said, that the question of gatekeeping would logically come first before dealing with a side issue if he does testify. We didn't really have a chance over the break to explore the facts of that further.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. So you'll confer on that and we can take it up. I suppose we could take it up in the morning. There's going to be a lot to do in the morning. But I need to hear from you on it before I resolve the question of whether Brian will testify on the theory that I think it's likely that he will testify.
MS. MENNINGER: Understood, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else we can address now?
MS. STERNHEIM: I can raise this now or --
JUDGE NATHAN: Microphone please.
MS. STERNHEIM: I apologize.
JUDGE NATHAN: That's okay.
MS. STERNHEIM: I could raise this now or we could hold off, but the government has indicated that they may call some witnesses out of order. That's not the issue. But with regard to one of the witnesses that they may call, I have some objection to the relevance of some of the testimony. And I did not know if you wish to hear it now or wait until such time as they actually intend to call.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. So, let's see. We have the current witness. How long do you anticipate for your cross, Mr. Pagliuca?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm going to guess an hour, hour and a half, your Honor, something like that.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Some of that may depend on some issues that I think the government has opened the door on. And I don't know if you want to talk about those now or later.
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, I don't want the jury to be sitting idly. So if it is going to happen in your cross, we should talk about it now.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. I don't know if you want to deal with Ms. Sternheim's issue first.
MS. STERNHEIM: Mine should go to the back of the bus on this.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MR. PAGLIUCA: So there was direct examination testimony, your Honor, concerning psychiatric issues, ongoing psychiatric issues, with this witness. I think there was some minimization of the ongoing psychiatric issues. And the records that I have reflect much more extensive psychiatric issues. I believe that I should be allowed to inquire about her extensive psychiatric history. There were questions on direct examination about her ongoing drug abuse, and I think that opens -- and I think it was minimized. And I think that that opens the door to my being able to examine on the full extent of her ongoing drug abuse. There was also testimony raised sort of in the vein of, I'm schizophrenic and I am schizophrenic about my children because they're important to me, essentially, and that's why I have this schizophrenia and hear voices around my children. This witness has a significant history of having her children taken away from her and these children living with her mother or other relatives. And I think that the way that the government has framed this allows for inquiry about that. And had the government not asked those questions, it was not my intent to get into any of the child issues. But I think the jury is left with the impression that because of what Epstein did to her, she's now schizophrenic and has all these schizophrenic concerns about her children, when, for the last 19 years, these children have been repeatedly put in different places as a result of her problems.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think if Mr. Pagliuca is going to go into detail, we should be having this at side bear under seal, if we're going to be discussing the details of her family.
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay.
JUDGE NATHAN: The court reporter requested, so she can sit, that we do it in the robing room.
(Pages 1590 to 1601 SEALED)
(Continued on next page)
(In open court)
JUDGE NATHAN: We'll bring in the jury. Can we have the witness come back please.
MS. POMERANTZ: I believe Ms. Comey just went to do that, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you. Bring in the jury.
(Jury present)
JUDGE NATHAN: Please take your seats. We're just waiting for the witness to return. Good afternoon, Carolyn. You may remove your mask. And I remind you, you are under oath. And Mr. Pagliuca, you may resume with your cross-examination.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sorry about that. Take your time.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Are you ready?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. Carolyn, when we broke for lunch --
JUDGE NATHAN: Could you pull the mic up, Mr. Pagliuca?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you.
MR. PAGLIUCA: -- we were talking about 2002, when you went to Mr. Epstein's house with Virginia Roberts. And I think where we stopped was you were -- you went into the house and you were taken upstairs by Ms. Roberts. Do you recall that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Now, the only person that you saw when you entered the house, you identified as being an older lady with unknown hair and an unknown accent. Is that correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you recall again giving a statement to the FBI in August of 2007?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you recall being interviewed by the FBI in August of 2007, Special Agents Nesbitt and Kuyrkendall?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And they met with you at your house; is that right?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And they weren't there to be mean to you; they were trying to ask you questions. Correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And they introduced themselves to you, right?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you certainly had no reason to lie to them; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: You told the FBI the truth at that meeting; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: So let's talk about that. Do you recall testifying at your deposition, this is at 3505-043, page 27.
JUDGE NATHAN: And give us the line numbers while that's being brought up on the screen.
MR. PAGLIUCA: It's actually 3505-043, 9, at deposition page 37, lines 21 through 23.
JUDGE NATHAN: I don't have anything on my screen yet.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 3505-043, page 9, page 27, deposition, lines 21 through 23, continuing on to the next page, which is 28, lines 1 and 2. May I, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Comey, any objection?
MS. COMEY: No, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Go ahead.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Isn't it true, Carolyn, that you testified under oath in 2009 to the following: "Q. Whether you were under oath or not, did you tell them the truth at that meeting? "A. Yeah. "Q. Did you tell the FBI the truth when they came to your house? "A. Yes. I have absolute no -- absolutely no reason to lie about this situation." Do you recall that testimony under oath?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. And you testified in your deposition that you told the FBI the truth in 2007; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. So let's go back to what you told the FBI. And this is at 3505-005, page 1, fourth paragraph, second sentence: Carolyn noticed an older lady with short black hair and an unknown accent at Epstein's residence. Isn't that what you told the FBI when you told them the truth in 2007?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And they didn't cut you off when you were talking to them; correct?
CAROLYN: Well, that day was a bad day for me. So it was like -- I was not expecting the FBI to come to my home.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. They didn't cut you off though, they weren't rude to you; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. And they gave you the opportunity to tell them whatever you wanted to tell them; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. What you told them, the only thing you told them is that you saw an older lady with short black hair and an unknown accent; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Now, at that point in your life, you knew what a British accent was; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you didn't tell them a British accent, you said an unknown accent; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Are you denying telling the FBI in 2007 that you said an unknown accent?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I'd ask that the Court -- A. -- talking about --
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'd ask that the Court direct the witness to answer the question please.
JUDGE NATHAN: I will direct the witness to answer the specific question and then you can explain. Would you like --
JUDGE NATHAN: Repeat the question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: You told the FBI that it was an unknown accent; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you. Okay. You didn't say anything else about the person that you claim you saw at Epstein's house, correct, other than what is right here?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay.
JUDGE NATHAN: I think at this point you can close and you can ask the question again just from her memory. Go ahead.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. PAGLIUCA: What you told the FBI in 2007 was that you saw an older lady with short black hair and an unknown accent, and that's all you told them at the time; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you. Now, you went in and Ms. Roberts led you upstairs; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: She knew where to go; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: She instructed you to rub Mr. Epstein's legs; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And she rubbed his back; correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Could you talk into the mic. A. When we first walked in is when Maxwell introduced herself to me.
MR. PAGLIUCA: You didn't tell that to the FBI in 2007, did you?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you. So you went upstairs and Ms. Roberts directed you to rub Epstein's legs while she rubbed his back; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Then Epstein told you to take off your shirt and your pants; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: If we can show the witness again 3505-005, page 1, fourth paragraph -- no, fifth paragraph, middle of the paragraph. Isn't it true that you told the FBI, Epstein stated to Carolyn, take off your shirt and take off your pants? A. Yes.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. And then you told the FBI, Virginia got naked and Carolyn undressed to her bra and panties, right?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And it's after that that Virginia Roberts, who's 18 at this time, has sex with Mr. Epstein in front of you; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. And that's while you sat on a couch; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And they were looking at you while you were sitting on a couch; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. Epstein paid you $300 directly to you; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: It was from Mr. Epstein to you; correct?
CAROLYN: I -- I don't know who it was from. It was just laying there. Anybody could have put it there.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Again, if we can show the witness 3505-005, page 2, paragraph 1.
MR. PAGLIUCA: The second to the last sentence: Epstein paid Carolyn $300 at the end of the massage. Do you see that?
(Continued on next page)
MR. PAGLIUCA: That's what you told the FBI in 2007; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. You then left the house with Ms. Roberts after Mr. Epstein paid you $300; is that correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And then after you left, isn't it true that you got Mr. Epstein's phone number from the phonebook?
MR. PAGLIUCA: We're going to show the witness, please, 3505-005, page 2, third paragraph, first sentence.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Isn't it true that you told the FBI, in 2007, "Carolyn obtained Epstein's phone number from a telephone book." Do you see that?
CAROLYN: Yeah, the telephone book that you're talking about was my personal book. It wasn't like a phonebook.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, what you told the FBI --
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you called to schedule a massage session by leaving a message with Sarah. Do you see that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And then Epstein returned your call; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, isn't it true --
MR. PAGLIUCA: Isn't it true that, in 2007, you told the FBI that Epstein returned Carolyn's call?
CAROLYN: I see that it says that, yes, but I don't -- at the time, the way that it's worded is not that Jeffrey Epstein himself called me.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, there is not a different name, is there? It says Epstein returned Carolyn's call?
MS. COMEY: Objection, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Then there was a second visit that you had shortly after you returning Mr. Epstein's call to schedule this second visit; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. You scheduled a second visit with Mr. Epstein after he returned your call; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And then your boyfriend, Sean, drove you; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And Sean waited in the car; is that right?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And this second visit, first you sat in the kitchen and talked to the chef; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: We can show the witness 005, page 2, paragraph 4, please.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Isn't it true that, in 2007 --
MS. COMEY: Objection, your Honor. Isn't this refreshing recollection at this point?
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes. If you want to point her to the paragraph and make it larger, that's fine.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. Fourth paragraph, please enlarge that.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Have you had a chance to look at the fourth paragraph?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Does reading that paragraph refresh your recollection that you told the FBI that you sat in the kitchen and the chef asked if you were hungry?
CAROLYN: You might be wrong on the paragraph you had me read. It mentioned nothing about a chef. It mentioned about me taking off my panties to get $400.
MR. PAGLIUCA: We should be at 005, page 2, paragraph 4.
JUDGE NATHAN: You mean the fourth full paragraph?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Correct.
JUDGE NATHAN: That's not what was said.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm sorry. The fourth line down beginning with "She."
JUDGE NATHAN: That's not there.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 3505-005, page 2.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm looking at a paper copy.
JUDGE NATHAN: Why don't you look at your paralegal's screen and make sure you're directing to the right paragraph, please. I think you mean the third full paragraph. Is that what you're looking for?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, the third full paragraph.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. We have that now. Question?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. I was waiting for the witness to finish.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Carolyn, does that refresh your memory that that's what you told the FBI in 2007, that you sat in the kitchen and the chef asked if you were hungry?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Isn't it also true that on that second visit, Sarah was there and led you upstairs?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Sarah was there to greet you?
MR. PAGLIUCA: If we can direct the witness back to the third paragraph, starting with the word "Sarah" after the word "Hungry."
MR. PAGLIUCA: Does this refresh your recollection that, in 2007, you told the FBI that Sarah was there and led her — meaning you — upstairs?
CAROLYN: A lot of it runs together because I had gone there so many times. So I'm a little confused on the timing, because the second time I went to his residence, I did not see Sarah.
MR. PAGLIUCA: So isn't it true, though, that that's what you told the FBI in 2007?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you also told them, in 2007, that Sarah placed towels on the massage table; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And at this second time, there is no one else there that you have told the FBI about, other than Sarah and Mr. Epstein; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: It's also true that Sarah was the person who would call you from New York to schedule massages; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: If you can look at the next paragraph, 005, page 2, second paragraph from the bottom.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Does this refresh your memory that Sarah would call you from New York to schedule a massage appointment for Epstein?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Ms. Maxwell's name does not appear in that paragraph; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Now, in this entire first discussion with the FBI in 2007, it's true that you never said the name, Ghislaine Maxwell, once; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: So is it your testimony that the FBI limited your ability to talk in some fashion?
MR. PAGLIUCA: You talked about Virginia Roberts, you talked about Sarah, you talked about Sean, you talked about Epstein, you talked about a cook, you talked about going there, and you never mentioned Maxwell once; correct?
CAROLYN: Correct, because she was not topic of what they were asking me. It had nothing to do with her at the time. But, yes, several occasions, she was there, but I was not asked about her.
MR. PAGLIUCA: You gave other information to the FBI about Sarah. Do you recall that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you recall telling the FBI that Sarah called you from New York to tell you about the Incubus tickets?
MR. PAGLIUCA: If we can direct the witness to 005, page 3, paragraph 5, the second to last sentence.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Does this refresh your memory that you told the FBI, in 2007, that Sarah called Carolyn to inform her that Epstein left the concert tickets for her?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And it was Sarah who called you to tell you that Epstein wanted to take photographs of you; correct?
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think the document may still be up for the witness.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Shut the document.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I would ask that, at the end of each question about a document, the document be brought down.
JUDGE NATHAN: Then do that.
MR. PAGLIUCA: We'll do that, your Honor. May I re-ask the question, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: It was Sarah who called you to tell you --
MR. PAGLIUCA: -- that Epstein wanted to take photographs of you; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you left Florida in 2003 to go to Georgia; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Now I want to talk about the lawsuit that you filed --
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm changing the question here. Okay? You filed a lawsuit against Epstein and Sarah Kellen in 2008; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: You had lawyers. One of your lawyers was a man named jack Scarola; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Mr. Scarola is still your lawyer; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Mr. Scarola represented you in your claim with the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you also had a lawyer in 2008 named Richard Willits. Do you remember Mr. Willits?
MR. PAGLIUCA: The lawsuits that were filed in 2008 were after your first discussion with the FBI in 2007; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, you met with the FBI in 2007 and then there was a lawsuit in 2008; right?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And before the lawsuits were filed, you had lawyers; right?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you had meetings with lawyers about the lawsuits?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And based on those meetings, you filed not one, but two civil complaints. Do you recall that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I want to talk about the second civil complaint first. First, you read that complaint before it was filed. Do you recall that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: If we can direct the witness to 3505-043, page 41, deposition page 157, lines 18 through 25. If we can blow that up for the witness and the Court, please.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you recall testifying in your deposition, under oath?
JUDGE NATHAN: You can leave it up for reading the question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Go ahead.
MR. PAGLIUCA: You were asked: "Q. Did you read the complaint before it was filed? "A. Yeah, I read the complaint. "Q. Did you -- when you read the complaint, did you notice there was anything missing from it? "A. No, I trust my attorneys. That's why they're my attorneys." Correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And moving on to the next question on the same page: "Q. Did you tell anyone, your lawyers or anybody --
JUDGE NATHAN: Just a second.
MR. PAGLIUCA: That question was objected to, your Honor, so I'm not going to read it.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MR. PAGLIUCA: The complaint that you filed in federal court was not against Ms. Maxwell; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the answer.
MR. PAGLIUCA: The complaint didn't mention Ms. Maxwell's name; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: The complaint was 91 pages with 209 paragraphs. Do you remember that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And not one paragraph had the word "Maxwell" in it; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I would like to show the witness and the Court first Exhibit C4. I provided the government a copy of this exhibit.
MR. PAGLIUCA: It's in the smaller binder. We can put it on the screen, if that's easier.
JUDGE NATHAN: Question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: This complaint was filed by Mr. Willits on your behalf in state court. Do you recall that? If you look at page 3, Mr. Willits' signature is there.
JUDGE NATHAN: Could you pull up to the microphone, please, Carolyn. A. I might be in the wrong binder. Is it this one?
MR. PAGLIUCA: It should have -- yes, I think that's the one, and it should be at C --
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, there is no C. I think you mean tab 4?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, tab 4, which is going to be Exhibit C4.
JUDGE NATHAN: Just a moment. Just a moment. It's not what I have in my binder.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Can we pull up C4 electronically, please.
MR. PAGLIUCA: , if you put that one down and we have the exhibit on the screen in front of you.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, can we approach?
(Continued on next page)
(Pages 1622 to 1624 SEALED)
(In open court)
MR. PAGLIUCA: May I resume your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Carolyn, we were talking about the exhibit that was up on the screen which is the --
JUDGE NATHAN: It's not up there. Go ahead.
MR. PAGLIUCA: The complaint filed by Mr. Willits in state court regarding Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen. Do you see that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And this was the complaint that was filed originally in 2008 on your behalf against those two individuals; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Did the witness say yes, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm going to move for the admission of C4, your Honor.
MS. COMEY: I'm going to object, your Honor. Not inconsistent.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I didn't hear the objection.
MS. COMEY: I would object, your Honor. It's not inconsistent.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'll sustain.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Can we have a sidebar, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: We'll take it at the break.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Carolyn, I'd like to ask you some questions about Exhibit C5, if we can display that for the witness, please.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you. Carolyn, I want to direct your attention first to paragraph 21 of exhibit -- 11 of Exhibit C5.
MR. PAGLIUCA: This was the complaint that you reviewed with your lawyers and testified under oath that it was complete and accurate; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: That's what you testified to under oath; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Paragraph 11 is a factual claim that you made against Mr. Epstein in that complaint; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Paragraph 11 does not contain the name "Maxwell," correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I'm going to move for the admission of paragraph 11.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, same objection.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I can respond --
JUDGE NATHAN: No, on this one, on paragraph 11, I will overrule.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Paragraph 11 reads: "The plaintiff, Carolyn, was first brought to the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's mansion..."
JUDGE NATHAN: You skipped a word.
MR. PAGLIUCA: "...was the first brought to the defendant, Jeffrey Epstein's mansion in late May or early June 2002 when she was 15 years old and in middle school."
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'd like to show the witness paragraph 21 of Exhibit C5.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Again, this is a factual statement made by your lawyers in this complaint against Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I move for the admission of paragraph 21, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Without objection, you may read it.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. PAGLIUCA: This paragraph reads: "In late May or early June of 2002, Carolyn was first introduced to defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. Carolyn was brought to Jeffrey Epstein's residence by a female friend of hers. Carolyn sat on the couch while the female friend took off her own clothes, mounted Jeffrey Epstein, who was wearing only a towel and lying on a table, and performed a sexual act upon Jeffrey Epstein in the presence of Carolyn in exchange for her participation as an observer of Jeffrey Epstein's lewd and insidious conduct. Carolyn was paid $300 by Jeffrey Epstein." Correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Paragraph 27 is another factual paragraph filed by your lawyers in federal court in this lawsuit; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Paragraph 27, could you look at that, please.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I move for the admission of paragraph 27, your Honor.
MS. COMEY: No objection.
JUDGE NATHAN: Without objection, you may read 27.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Paragraph 27 says: "Approximately one week after the first incident, Carolyn received a telephone call from Jeffrey Epstein requesting that she return to his residence. On this occasion, Jeffrey Epstein directed Carolyn to undress to her brassier and underwear and to provide him with a massage. At the conclusion of the massage, Jeffrey Epstein masturbated himself in Carolyn's presence. Jeffrey Epstein paid Carolyn $300 for this encounter." True?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'd like to direct the witness's attention to paragraph 33. And this will be the last exemplary, your Honor --
JUDGE NATHAN: Just ask the question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you see paragraph 33?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And that's another factual paragraph in the complaint against Mr. Epstein, filed in federal court in 2009; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And again, that's true?
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I would object. It's not inconsistent.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, may I respond?
JUDGE NATHAN: I'm sustaining. Move on. We'll deal with it at the break.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. I'm going to move for the admission of paragraph 33, your Honor.
MS. COMEY: Same objection.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained. We'll take it up at the break.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Carolyn, this complaint repeats these same paragraphs against Mr. Epstein two times per month up to August 2003. Do you recall that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'd like to show the witness paragraph 206.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Paragraph 206 is a factual complaint against Sarah Kellen. Do you see that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And again, that was reviewed by you prior to it being filed in federal court by your lawyers; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: You reviewed this prior to it being filed in federal court by your lawyers, correct, and approved it?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you recall me asking you questions about your testimony under oath earlier?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you agreed that you gave that testimony under oath in 2009; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Are you disagreeing with that now?
JUDGE NATHAN: I think the witness is looking at the paragraph. So clarify the question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Isn't this paragraph 206 of the complaint that you agreed you reviewed and agreed with; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: This paragraph does not contain the name Ghislaine Maxwell; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I move for the admission of paragraph 206, your Honor.
MS. COMEY: Same objection, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Paragraph 207, again, this paragraph deals with Sarah Kellen; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: My question is, is this a paragraph of the complaint that was approved --
MR. PAGLIUCA: Move for the admission of paragraph 207, your Honor.
MS. COMEY: Same objection, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'll take it at the break.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, there are a number of these that I will address with the Court at the break if that's all right.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you remember, Carolyn, talking to Dr. Hall in connection with this lawsuit?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you remember talking to --
JUDGE NATHAN: I'm sorry. Stop. You can close the binder, Carolyn. Thank you.
MR. PAGLIUCA: May I, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you remember talking to Dr. Richard Hall for about six and a half hours in connection with this lawsuit at your lawyer's office on October 21st, 2009?
MR. PAGLIUCA: You have no recollection of meeting with Dr. Hall for six and a half hours on October 21st, 2009?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you recall telling Dr. Hall that you started seeing Epstein in 2002?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, you do?
MR. PAGLIUCA: There were also, in connection with this lawsuit, what are called interrogatories that you answered under oath. Do you recall that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: There were documents called interrogatories --
MR. PAGLIUCA: They were questions sent by lawyers --
MR. PAGLIUCA: -- to your lawyer for you to answer under oath. Do you recall that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: If we can show the witness 3505-043, page 5, deposition page 12, lines 23 through 25.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Have you had an opportunity to review that, Carolyn?
JUDGE NATHAN: It just came up.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure.
MR. PAGLIUCA: You should be looking at page 12, lines 19 through 25.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, is the question whether this refreshes recollection?
JUDGE NATHAN: I think that is the question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: It is.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, reviewing those questions and answers, does that refresh your recollection --
MR. PAGLIUCA: Deposition page 12, on that page.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Lines 18 through 25.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Does that refresh your recollection that you were shown your answers to interrogatories, Mr. Scarola directed you to them, and that you said to Mr. Scarola, this is what me and you did, right, then it should be correct, unless somebody messed with it?
MS. COMEY: Objection, your Honor. I didn't think that was what -- the witness said she didn't recall.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Isn't it true that's what you said under oath in 2009?
MS. COMEY: A same objection.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'd like to show you, Carolyn, the answers to interrogatories that you authored and swore to under oath in connection with this lawsuit. Okay?
MR. PAGLIUCA: If we can show the witness C8, please. It might be easier to look at C8 in the binder.
JUDGE NATHAN: Last time it wasn't the right exhibit.
MR. PAGLIUCA: We can do it on the screen.
JUDGE NATHAN: Go ahead.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you have C8? And if you flip to the last page, 19 of 20 on C8. Do you see that's the first part of your --
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you signed that under oath; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I move for the admission of C8.
MS. COMEY: Same objection, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: We'll take it up at the break.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm going to have the same request, your Honor, as to C9, which we'll take up at the break, I assume?
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Would you like to take the break now?
JUDGE NATHAN: Do you have other matters?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor, I have further cross examination of this witness.
JUDGE NATHAN: We'll break. Members of the jury, for the afternoon break, we'll see you in about 15 minutes.
(Continued on next page)
(Jury not present)
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, should I sit or stand?
JUDGE NATHAN: I don't mind. I just want to hear you.
MR. PAGLIUCA: C4 was the state complaint, your Honor. And I'm not sure what the objection was.
MS. COMEY: The objection was that it is not inconsistent with the witness's testimony, your Honor. I believe your Honor sustained that objection.
JUDGE NATHAN: That's what I'm hearing you on now. Mr. Pagliuca, you're seeking the admission of the whole document?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I am, your Honor. Alternatively, the factual paragraphs. This does not have a lot of legalese in it. It didn't seem to be too complicated to me.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. So let's pick up the first factual paragraph. So just by way of background, you inquired about this document and asked if Ms. Maxwell is mentioned anywhere in the complaint; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: And the answer to that was no?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Correct.
JUDGE NATHAN: So what I think we then need is to take individual statements to determine if there is some inconsistency with the testimony. So point me to the first factual inconsistency.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, your Honor, there are two principals at play here. The first is this is what is commonly referred to as impeachment by omission, which is a subset of impeachment by contradiction. Impeachment by omission typically occurs where there is a document or a statement where the witness would likely include whatever is omitted, and this is such a document, and I am seeking to impeach by omission through this document. This is a complaint against two people that this witness claims sexually abused her. It's not only against Epstein, it's against one of Epstein's employees who is highlighted in this complaint. The entire testimony by the government here through this witness has downplayed the role of Sarah Kellen and up-played the role of Ghislaine Maxwell, and it is an impeachment by omission that, in 2008, shortly after being interviewed by the FBI about the same subject matter with counsel, there is no mention of Maxwell in this entire complaint. I think that is significant under the facts of this case. So, I think it is admissible under that theory and there is ample federal law, First Circuit, this circuit, that supports that theory of impeachment by omission. And these factual paragraphs, I believe, are also impeaching of the witness's testimony because it is inconsistent with the things that she has claimed happened to her in addition to these things that are in the complaint.
JUDGE NATHAN: So that's a long way of getting to my -- responding to my first question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: What paragraph is inconsistent?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, the fact that Ms. Maxwell --
JUDGE NATHAN: Point me to a paragraph.
MR. PAGLIUCA: All of the paragraphs, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: On the same theory you just pronounced?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: So then on your second theory, can you point to any inconsistency?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, these are all omissions, your Honor, factual. So paragraph 8, for example, the witness has testified now that she was the subject of penetration and intercourse by Epstein. Paragraph 8 does not include that. Paragraph 9, I think, is an expansion. We have only Kellen, often calling -- excuse me. 11A is what I'm looking at.
JUDGE NATHAN: So other than the omission theory, is there an inconsistency you're pointing to?
JUDGE NATHAN: Is there any other? I understand your omission theory, I'll hear from Ms. Comey on that in a second, I do have a question for you on it, and I need to read the whole thing. Let me just ask. If there were, for example, a paragraph that said these are some of the facts of what occurred, but not all of them, would your omission theory work to get everything in?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: If there is a few discrepancies?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: Do you have a case for that proposition? I mean, it's really a factual question whether there is a reasonable inference available from which the jury could conclude that there is an inconsistency by testifying to one thing to inclusion of facts now that were not included previously.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I think that's true and it's under the circumstances -- I mean the case law, I can -- I need to pull up my computer to give you the cite here, your Honor, but I'll do that now.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Comey.
MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor. I think the theory of omission only works where one would expect that the specific facts that are omitted would be included in the particular statement. This is a lawsuit brought against two defendants and it is containing the core allegations against those two defendants. One would not expect that to include allegations against third parties. I think that's borne out by the substance of the document. Count One only talks about Jeffrey Epstein, the first defendant. Count Two only talks about Sarah Kellen, the second defendant. I think that that makes sense and it wouldn't be expected that Ghislaine Maxwell or anyone else would be included in allegations in a complaint against those two. More broadly, I think defense counsel has already gotten the point that he wants to make across to the jury. He has made very, very clear, repeatedly, that this witness sued Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen and not Ghislaine Maxwell. They have now heard that she has filed multiple court documents that are lengthy in which the defendant's name is not mentioned. So he has everything he needs to make his impeachment point. At this point, it's cumulative and risks 403 prejudice and confusion of the issues, and a sideshow about a 2009 lawsuit to put in the document itself. He has everything he needs.
JUDGE NATHAN: I think that he has everything he needs goes to the relevance of the contention that the exclusion is there.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think that the point is that she wasn't included as a defendant. I don't think that it would be expected, especially in a document --
JUDGE NATHAN: I think it's a redirect point, frankly, counsel. And on a 401, 403, it is already in, it's a document. So it's really a cumulative argument. The point that you want to make, I presume you'll make on redirect. Since the point has already been made, I don't see that there is tremendous prejudice in including the document itself.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, my concern would be that these are crafted by lawyers in order to satisfy the elements of particular causes of action.
JUDGE NATHAN: Right.
MS. COMEY: It will confuse the issues and it's not written in a narrative form and it wasn't offered by this witness, and I think it would confuse the issues to start putting these words in that her attorneys wrote. She did not write this.
JUDGE NATHAN: I think those are fine redirect points. We've already established the 401 of the omission, I don't think it causes substantial 403 prejudice, and you're going to make those redirect points in any event. So at least with respect to this document C4, I'm going to overrule the objection. C5, I think might be in a different position. I mean, 206 says, expressly, Kellen is one of defendant Epstein's employees, assistants referenced in paragraph 12. Epstein, Kellen, and others reached an agreement between themselves for the purposes of allowing defendant Epstein to commit the illegal acts. And then if you turn back to 12, 12 says, Epstein's a wealthy financier with a lavish home, wealth, a network of assistants and employees used his resource and influence over a vulnerable minor child to engage in a systematic pattern of sexually exploited behavior. I mean, on its terms, it references additional people. And so, on its face, it's not exclusive and I think that puts it in a different position.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, with regard to this exhibit, I was simply offering discrete factual paragraphs.
JUDGE NATHAN: Right. But 206 -- so 206 was the one that we began with. I don't think that paragraph is factually inconsistent with the testimony for precisely the reason I've just indicated.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I think we left off with 206.
JUDGE NATHAN: So what's the next paragraph?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I mean, I can go through it and tell you all the paragraphs that I'm intending to introduce or ask --
JUDGE NATHAN: So 206 is not inconsistent. Therefore, the objection is sustained. What's the next paragraph?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, let me look at 206 and hopefully respond to that.
JUDGE NATHAN: That's fine.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm fine with not admitting that, your Honor. I think that's right.
JUDGE NATHAN: They might want to get that one in.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I agree with you.
JUDGE NATHAN: What's next?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, I guess the question -- I'm not sure where we left off, your Honor, because I think we got to about 33, and then we were going to take it up at sidebar.
(Continued on next page)
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Should I look at 33?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, 33. The first inconsistency with the direct testimony is the date, July of 2002.
JUDGE NATHAN: I don't know -- so again, return to -- what's the inconsistency?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, the indictment says 2001. In her direct testimony she said 2001, and on the cross-examination, she admitted to 2002.
JUDGE NATHAN: So you have to use a full sentence so I can track you. She said the first incident was in 2001.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: She then talked about 100 additional incidents --
MR. PAGLIUCA: Right.
JUDGE NATHAN: -- over the course of at least a couple of years. So what's inconsistent in July of 2002, she again returned to?
MR. PAGLIUCA: This is chronological through this complaint. This complaint goes from -- 2002 is the beginning spot, and goes through 2003. So the entirety of the allegation is that these events occurred between 2002 and 2003, not 2001 and 2004. And so this is impeachment on the time frame that is alleged in the indictment and testified to by the witness on direct examination.
JUDGE NATHAN: Is there a paragraph that talks about the first couple of incidents, which I think would be, as you're suggesting, time frame inconsistent.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I think you admitted those already, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: See? I'm consistent.
MR. PAGLIUCA: You are. Yes, you are. Yes, you are. The Court admitted paragraph 21, I think, as the -- 21 and 27.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And where we started getting --
JUDGE NATHAN: 21 and 27. 27 is called incident two.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Right.
JUDGE NATHAN: And then 33, I'm not saying an inconsistency. I'll sustain there.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 39 --
JUDGE NATHAN: And to the extent it is, because it could somehow be read as part of a time frame that's off, it's consistent with her -- it falls within the time frame she testified to; it's not specific as to which incident this is. To the extent there's 401 relevance, it's cumulative of the point that you've already gotten in, which is that this -- that the first incident described in this complaint took place in 2002, and her testimony is that it took place in 2001. Next.
MR. PAGLIUCA: But also to that point, your Honor, this is inconsistent because we're not -- we're not talking about 2001, we're talking about 2002.
JUDGE NATHAN: Right. But it doesn't specify -- she testified to incidents like these in 2002, and so it's just not -- tell me how it's inconsistent with that testimony.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, you know, for the second time in July of 2002 --
JUDGE NATHAN: No, it doesn't say that.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Paragraph 39 is what I'm looking at.
JUDGE NATHAN: Oh, you told me 33. I am a lot of things, but I am not a mind reader. I sustained on 33. I will go to 39. Go ahead.
MR. PAGLIUCA: So for the second time in July of 2002. This is --
JUDGE NATHAN: I mean, that reads like more than one incident in July of 2002.
MR. PAGLIUCA: The second, not a third, not a fourth.
JUDGE NATHAN: For the second time. Okay.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And when we get through all of this, the other inconsistency that tracks all of these is there is no allegation of sexual intrusion or penetration. Every single one of these allegations is fondling of breasts and buttocks, every single one. And so we have new testimony about the acts that were allegedly performed.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Ms. Comey, do you want to respond to that for paragraph 39?
MS. COMEY: So for 39, your Honor, first with respect to the time frame, I think the first clause is for the second time in that month of that year. That's not inconsistent with what the witness testified to. She testified she was going frequently, certainly at least twice a month, through 2002. So that's not inconsistent. With respect to the sex acts, I think here is part of the issue with taking a legal document and trying to suggest that the witness should have included every single detail in it. It is not necessarily the case that in order to make out the legal claims in this complaint, that a lawyer would have needed to include anything other than fondling and masturbation. So it is not to be expected that if she had told her attorneys about the other sex acts, that they would have included it. And so I don't think the theory of omissions works with respect to the sex acts.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I disagree, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes, I imagine.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I mean, Ms. Comey doesn't do civil work, but it is significant. And it is significant for many reasons. And in particular --
JUDGE NATHAN: This one, there are details included. The one detail that was testified to is a significant detail. So with respect to 39, I'll overrule. Sorry, I'll sustain.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, may I clarify on that? I don't think the witness testified to a particular time frame when the penetration actually took place. And so I don't know that we can say that any particular paragraph is necessarily inconsistent, because I don't think she testified to a time frame. I don't know that she would remember a particular time frame. I think that this could be more readily accomplished to the extent Mr. Pagliuca wants to point out that this complaint does not contain a reference to that particular sex act. I think he can ask her the question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I think the document itself has value --
JUDGE NATHAN: You're not moving the whole document. We've established that. So one paragraph at a time.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. The paragraphs have value --
JUDGE NATHAN: And you'll respond to Ms. Comey's point that it's only inconsistent if the time frame matches up with the time frame that she's testified as to penetration. Do you have a response to that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, she testified here that it was more frequent than what's alleged. So that's one problem with the argument from the government. I think she testified here that it was up to four times a week that she was going. And this complaint goes month by month, two times a month. That's what it talks about. That's what this is. So that's another inconsistency. I'm not sure where the disconnect is here on the factual inconsistency where there is specific claim of fondling breasts and buttocks. At the conclusion of the massage, Jeffrey Epstein masturbated himself in C presence, paid C in excess of $200 for this encounter, which is also inconsistent with the testimony, which she's claiming 300, up to 600 an encounter. So it's inconsistent.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. I'm going to overrule on 39 and I think Ms. Comey's points are fully available for cross -- sorry, for redirect on this one. The time frame pace is a little difficult to match up exactly given that there is some -- a little bit of a shift -- well, it's hard to know what time frame this is referring to, but I think in light of the witness's testimony, there's an inference available that paragraph 39 falls within the time frame that she talked about, penetrative acts, and that's not included. So I'll allow 39. Next.
MR. PAGLIUCA: The same argument for 45, your Honor.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I would just like to clarify that the witness only described one penetrative act on one occasion once. So it cannot be that she's inconsistent if she doesn't mention it in 50 different allegations on 50 different dates.
JUDGE NATHAN: Was that the testimony, that there was only a penetrative act once?
MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor. It was the second incident where Jeffrey Epstein brought another female into the room. She testified that he briefly penetrated her twice during that incident. So he inserted his penis into her two times during that one incident and that was it. So it's one incident.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. I'm re-persuaded. I'm going to sustain on 39. But you can ask the question about are there any allegations in the complaint regarding penetrative sex, which is as she testified to. Next paragraph.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 51. And this is the same -- the same issue.
MS. COMEY: And the same objection, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. So I'll sustain on 51. Next.
JUDGE NATHAN: And again, you can ask the question, but it's not, on its face, inconsistent. And I don't think there's an inference available. And to the extent there is, it would be cumulative of the question that you're asking. 57.
MS. COMEY: Same objection, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. I'll sustain on 57 for the same reason. Next.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I think I can -- I can just tell you all of them, your Honor, which are going to be the same.
JUDGE NATHAN: If they are all on that same theory, then you can make the record. If there's any different theory of inconsistency, either as to the specific time frame and testimony or to some different inference available, I'll hear it. But otherwise just make the record with respect to the numbered paragraphs.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. And when I get to the place where it's different, I'll stop and we'll address that.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Is that fair?
JUDGE NATHAN: Fair.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 69, 75.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained on 69. And sustained on 75.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 105.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 111.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 117.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 123.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 129.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 135.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 141.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 147.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 153.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 159.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 165.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 171.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 177.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 183.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: There's a slightly different argument on 189.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And 195. These are the end dates of the allegations, which brackets it before 2004, which is inconsistent with the testimony. And so these are the last two dates alleged in this complaint which does not go farther than August of 2003.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think the paragraphs themselves are still consistent. I think Mr. Pagliuca can make the point by asking the question of the witness about whether there were any allegations contained after August 2003 in the complaint.
JUDGE NATHAN: Is there a line that says it's the final contact?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, it just says August 2003, incident one and incident two.
JUDGE NATHAN: Right.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And there are no further allegations in the complaint.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Sustained. I think if it said the last incident, then fine. But otherwise you can ask the question. The paragraph itself is not inconsistent. What else?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, I'm offering 207 and 208 with regard to Sarah Kellen.
JUDGE NATHAN: 207.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 207 and 208.
JUDGE NATHAN: What's the inconsistency in 207?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Again, these are -- well, as to all of these, I'll just make this argument as to all of the paragraphs that the Court sustained. I view these as impeachment by omission because Ms. Maxwell's name does not appear in any of these paragraphs.
JUDGE NATHAN: Right. So this is why this one is different than the last document, which is because of paragraph 206 and paragraph 12, which expressly reference other unnamed individual employees and assistants. So on that ground I'll sustain on 207. Is there something different in 208?
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. So sustained on that ground, too. What else?
MR. PAGLIUCA: The interrogatory responses, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Which one is that tab?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Those are going to be C-8, I believe, starting at --
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MR. PAGLIUCA: -- tab 8.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Is there a specific inconsistency or is it the omission theory?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. It's both.
JUDGE NATHAN: Objection. Compound. Sustained. Go ahead.
MR. PAGLIUCA: It's both. This document, we need to read the question with the answer. And so question 16: State in detail how you came to be at Mr. Epstein's home on each occasion, i.e., did someone bring you or ask you if you would or wanted to go. If so, state the name and address of that individual and what he/she told you and the purpose of your visit.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. It's an open-ended question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. The answer is limited.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. So I will allow -- Ms. Comey, unless you want to be heard, my inclination is to allow the question and answer in 16 in.
MR. PAGLIUCA: The same is -- 17, your Honor, we have the question: The amount of monies or anything of value you claim you were given or paid to you by Mr. Epstein or someone, yaddah, yaddah. And we have an expansive time frame here. And the question, 2000 to 2006. And then the answer again is she's only paid for May or June of 2002 to August of 2003. So we've excluded two whole years by this answer in terms of the time frame the witness testified to.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. On the time frame inconsistency, I'll allow 17, question and answer. What's next?
MR. PAGLIUCA: 19 is all males who had any sexual contact with her. It says sexual assault or battery since age 10. And the answer is none. And she's testified that there were two males, I believe, that had sexual contact with her.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I believe the testimony was that they saw her naked in the massage room. I don't believe there was testimony about sexual contact. I would want to check the transcript, your Honor, but that is my recollection of the testimony.
JUDGE NATHAN: It's mine as well, but you'll check the transcript. In the absence of that, I don't see any inconsistency.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, then 20 covers lewd or lascivious conduct, which would be naked people in a massage looking at a naked underage --
MS. COMEY: Again, your Honor, the testimony was just that they saw her naked. There was no other color on it. There was no suggestion that they were engaged in sex acts or that they were naked. I have the same objection.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'm going to overrule on that one, 20. There's the inference available of inconsistency, so I'll allow 20. Next.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 21 is a description --
JUDGE NATHAN: Just to spell that out, on the theory that other males present in the room during conduct described could be deemed lewd and lascivious conduct.
MS. COMEY: I just want to be clear, your Honor, that the description was that they saw her naked in the massage room, not that they saw her during any of the conduct. I think there was testimony that she would be naked for a period before Jeffrey Epstein would come in; and so it would just be them seeing her nude in the room is what the testimony was, not lewd and lascivious conduct.
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, I'm going to overrule on 20. Go ahead.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 21 is simply asking a description of the lewd and lascivious exhibition, the date, and whether you received money or other consideration. Answer, none.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Exhibition we did not get testimony on, so I'll sustain. There's no inconsistency on 21. No inference available.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay.
JUDGE NATHAN: Anything else?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. C-9, question 16. This is an amendment to the prior question 16 by the witness. And the witness added in this amendment: I was also transported via private car provided by Jeffrey Epstein. It's significant, your Honor, in that the witness had the opportunity to think about, reflect, add information here, and did not. And it is important in the context of this case where there's this changed memory over time.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. I see the inconsistency.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you.
JUDGE NATHAN: 16 I'll allow. What else?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I think that's it -- well, then there's -- well, I think that's it.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. We really need to get the jury back.
MS. STERNHEIM: Can we just have five minutes, Judge?
JUDGE NATHAN: You can take five.
MS. COMEY: And, your Honor, can I ask how long we have left on cross-examination? I think it's been longer than the direct at this point.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'm stepping down. You can ask the question.
(Recess)
JUDGE NATHAN: We'll bring in the jury. Ms. Comey is coming?
MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Let's get the witness. Mr. Pagliuca, if you can go to the podium.
MS. COMEY: I apologize, your Honor. The witness is on her way. I was looking for her.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Bring in the jury.
(Jury present)
JUDGE NATHAN: Everyone may be seated. And we're getting the witness, so it will just be a second. Members of the jury, sorry for the extended break. We were working through issues to minimize the sidebars, so thank you for your patience. While we have a second, I'll use the time to remind you of scheduling issues this week. Same as it's been. Next week, you'll recall, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday we won't sit. That's because I have a scheduling conflict. So we'll be back Thursday, Friday. And then the following week, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, then we're off for the Christmas break. And the following week, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and then we're off for the New Year's break. And I'll keep you updated beyond that as soon as I have it. Good afternoon, Carolyn. You can take your seat. And please remove your mask. Thank you. I remind Carolyn she's under oath. Mr. Pagliuca, you may continue with your cross-examination.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor. I'd like to direct the witness to 3505-43, page 10, deposition page 31, lines 21 through 25.
JUDGE NATHAN: Can we get them called up please.
MR. PAGLIUCA: It will come up on the screen.
JUDGE NATHAN: Page and lines?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Excuse me? Page and line, your Honor, we're going to start --
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I would object to this.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Start at page 32, line -- 31, line 18. I'll have the witness to see if it refreshes --
JUDGE NATHAN: What are the lines?
MR. PAGLIUCA: 3505-043, page 10, deposition page --
JUDGE NATHAN: I can't hear you, Mr. Pagliuca.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm trying to bend down, talk, and read at the same time.
JUDGE NATHAN: Right.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 3505-043, page 10, deposition page 31, line 19.
MR. PAGLIUCA: No, it will come up on your screen there.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I'd like the opportunity to make a record on this after.
JUDGE NATHAN: It's okay. Next question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Carolyn, in the 2002 to 2003 time frame, you were abusing multiple substances; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you recall abusing alcohol and drugs at approximately the age of 13?
MR. PAGLIUCA: If we can direct the witness to 3505-035.
JUDGE NATHAN: Pause. Go ahead.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 3505-035, 47.
JUDGE NATHAN: Lines please?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 23 through 24.
MS. COMEY: No objection, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Go ahead.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: You indicated that you began drinking at the age 13, do you see that?
JUDGE NATHAN: Carolyn, could you please move into the mic. A. I do not see that on the page that's in front of me at all.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. I will move on, your Honor.
MR. PAGLIUCA: You agree you were smoking marijuana at the age of 13; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'd like to direct the witness to 3505-039, page 4, the lower right box.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you recall that during the time frame 2002 through 2003, you were using benzodiazepines three to six times a week; correct?
CAROLYN: Sir, this document that you're showing me was taken on 9/16/2005. So what does that have to do with the time frame you're asking me?
MR. PAGLIUCA: This was an intake interview, do you recall that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. And if you turn to --
MR. PAGLIUCA: The witness can be shown 039, page 6.
MR. PAGLIUCA: That's your signature in October of 2005; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: You were telling the intake person about your drug use; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you were telling them about your history of drug use prior to 2005 in this intake; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: No? If we look at the intake form, the paragraph that I showed you, do you recall telling --
JUDGE NATHAN: Can you turn to it and enlarge it.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. Page 4 of the exhibit.
JUDGE NATHAN: It's too small to read.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you recall telling the intake interviewer that you were using benzodiazepines?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I understand. Three to six times per week, right?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Right.
MR. PAGLIUCA: You were using alcohol three to six times per week; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you see that it says alcohol, three to six times a week, beginning --
MS. COMEY: Objection. Reading from a document --
JUDGE NATHAN: Just a moment. Just a moment. You could direct her to it and ask if that refreshes.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. I'm looking at where it says alcohol.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. And you told them -- well, does this refresh your memory that you told them that you were using alcohol three to six times per week beginning in 2000? Do you see that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. So this interviewer -- well, you signed this form, didn't you?
MR. PAGLIUCA: It's also true that you were doing cocaine in 2002 and 2003; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: We can direct the witness to -- A. And it dates in 2005.
MR. PAGLIUCA: We can take down that document, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: It's down.
MR. PAGLIUCA: If I can direct the witness to 3505-043, page 28, deposition page 105, lines 7 through 11.
JUDGE NATHAN: Just a moment. A. I'm sorry, what lines?
MR. PAGLIUCA: It will be enlarged for you.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. We're looking at lines 7 through 11.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Again, this is testimony under oath in 2009; correct?
MS. COMEY: Objection, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: The basis of the objection, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: Not inconsistent.
MR. PAGLIUCA: You also ingested something called angel trumpets when you were going to Mr. Epstein's house, do you recall that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: If we can direct the witness to 3505-035, page 139. That's the deposition page, I believe.
JUDGE NATHAN: I will direct the witness to answer, because I don't think we got a direct answer to the question.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 3505-035, page 139, line 10.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Go ahead.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, may I confer with counsel --
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
MS. COMEY: -- please?
(Counsel conferred)
JUDGE NATHAN: Just one second, Carolyn.
MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Can you orient the witness as to what we're looking at.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Page 138.
JUDGE NATHAN: But just the date that this is from.
MR. PAGLIUCA: This is from 2009, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Can you just show the first page, because she said she didn't know what it was.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. October 21st, 2009.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. And then --
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: The question is did you make that statement?
MR. PAGLIUCA: That you used angel trumpets --
MR. PAGLIUCA: You know what an angel trumpet is; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your drug use continued in the 2001 through 2003 time frame; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Isn't it true that you left the state of Florida in part because you were abusing cocaine, and you and your boyfriend wanted to go to Georgia so that you could detox?
CAROLYN: That is not true. I went to Georgia to escape the traumatic events that were happening in my life.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, and you went to Georgia and you were pregnant, right?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you stayed there through 2003; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I want to ask you some questions about your testimony related to your claims about having sex with Mr. Epstein. Do you remember testifying about that on direct examination?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And let me back up.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Isn't it true that you used cocaine while you were at Mr. Epstein's house?
MR. PAGLIUCA: If I could direct the witness's attention -- A. I saw the paper.
JUDGE NATHAN: I will ask you to call it up.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I am, your Honor. I'm going to direct the witness's attention to page 3505-043, 28, at page 105. Let's start at page 103. Does the witness have page 103?
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Let's go to line 10, start at line 11.
MS. COMEY: Objection, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Just a second. When there's an objection, you have to wait till I rule, please.
MR. PAGLIUCA: It's foundational for the next question.
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, then let's direct counsel and the Court to the lines, and then you can expand for foundation, if necessary.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. Line 14: Question: And how did Mr. Epstein --
JUDGE NATHAN: No, no, no. You need to tell the government and me what lines to read. The government can indicate objection or no objection, and then I'll rule, and then you can proceed or not proceed.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. Page 103, line 14 through 25, continuing on to 104, through page -- line 25, continuing on through 105, page -- line 25.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'm still on 103 here.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Excuse me?
JUDGE NATHAN: It was just on 103 so far.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay.
JUDGE NATHAN: You need to communicate with each other because it's just not working.
JUDGE NATHAN: Just a minute, please. Can you repeat, I guess, the line. Okay.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And we do have paper copies, your Honor, if that's easier.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. So what exact lines do you propose reading?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, I think we need to start at 14 and continue through that page, the next page, the next page, and the next page.
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Comey.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think the only potentially admissible portion of this might be on pages 105 through 106.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you. Let's go there. That seems to get what you're getting at.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. I was just trying to give the context, your Honor. So that's fine. I'll go there.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: Looking at line 7 on page 105, does it refresh your memory that you answered the question: Yes, but I have done cocaine at Mr. Epstein's house also?
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think we need the question and then its answer, and then it needs to continue through to page 106.
JUDGE NATHAN: So at this point you may read on that page those indicated lines. Go ahead.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Fine, your Honor. Starting at line 4, is that fine, Ms. Comey?
MS. COMEY: Yes. But I would ask that counsel be cautioned not to say a last name.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Absolutely.
MS. COMEY: And then continuing into page 106, line 9.
MR. PAGLIUCA: That will be fine. Does it refresh your recollection --
JUDGE NATHAN: You can just read. Just read it all the way through and then move on.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay.
MR. PAGLIUCA: (Reading) "Q. And you were and he doing cocaine away from Mr. Epstein, that is what you did when you weren't at Mr. Epstein's house? "A. Yes. But I have done cocaine at Mr. Epstein's house also. "Q. When did you do cocaine at Mr. Epstein's house? "A. On some occasions when I was there. "Q. What occasions were those? "A. I don't recall the dates and times. "Q. What, where at his house were you doing cocaine? "A. I would excuse myself and go to the bathroom. "Q. And who was in the bathroom when you were doing cocaine? "A. Myself. "Q. And what form of cocaine were you doing? "A. Powder. "Q. And did you tell anyone you were taking cocaine? "A. Mr. Epstein knew I was high. "Q. Did you tell Mr. Epstein that you had gone in the bathroom in his house and snorted cocaine? "A. Not per se in that form. "Q. Did you tell him that you were using drugs in his house? "A. No. "Q. So -- no. He never told you to do drugs in his house, did he? "A. No, he never told me to."
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. And then the answer was: "A. No, he never told me to." Correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And those are the answers that you gave under oath in 2009; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Now, I want to ask you some questions about your testimony here today about your claim that you had intercourse with Mr. Epstein.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Directing the witness's attention to the same page, 106, line 13.
JUDGE NATHAN: Not up yet.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I would just ask that the witness be asked to explain what she defines as "sexual intercourse."
MR. PAGLIUCA: I think that's --
JUDGE NATHAN: That's not an objection. Let me look at what we're talking about. Let's do this the same way every time, okay?
MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Page and line?
MR. PAGLIUCA: 106, 13, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Go ahead.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: (Reading) "Q. Did you ever have sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein? "A. No." Do you see that question and answer?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Then, your Honor, I'm going to continue, with the Court's permission, to the next series of questions and answers.
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
CAROLYN: You asked me the question, did you ever have sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein. And the answer says that I replied no. I replied no because I was not a willing participant. He had intercourse with me and I stopped it. I didn't ask to have sex with him.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And, your Honor, may I continue reading?
JUDGE NATHAN: What lines?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Sixteen through 107, 14.
JUDGE NATHAN: Need to see 107. Through what line?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Five, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Go ahead.
MS. COMEY: I would object, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'm sorry?
MS. COMEY: Same objection, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Go ahead.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: (Reading) "Q. Do you know what I mean by sexual intercourse or do I need to go through the various acts? "A. Oh, I am pretty sure I know what sexual intercourse is being I have two children. "Q. Well, I just want to make sure we're clear about some things. Did Mr. Epstein ever insert his penis into any part of your body at all? "A. I just said that I've never had any sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein, and that I knew what -- "
JUDGE NATHAN: You misread.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: (Reading)
CAROLYN: "I just said that I've never had sexual intercourse with Mr. Epstein, and that I knew what sexual intercourse was and I said no. So for you to explain to me what it was, unnecessary. "Q. Okay. Do you just want to answer my question now, ma'am? "A. I did four times. I said no." Continuing on, your Honor, to --
(Continued on next page)
MR. PAGLIUCA: Continuing on, your Honor, to page 106, please.
JUDGE NATHAN: Lines?
MR. PAGLIUCA: 24, 25 -- excuse me. 108, 24, 25, 109, 16.
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Comey?
MS. COMEY: Same objection.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I need a basis. I'm going to respond.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'm going to overrule.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA: "Q. Did you ever masturbate Mr. Epstein? "A. No. "Q. Did you ever touch Mr. Epstein's penis? "A. No. "Q. In any way? "A. No. No. "Q. Did you ever penetrate with any part of your body, any part of Mr. Epstein's body? "A. Besides touching his nipples, no. "Q. Did you ever do anything physically to Mr. Epstein, other than give him a nipple massage? "A. Squeezed his nipples.
CAROLYN: That says, "Simple massage." "Q. Simple massage? "A. Squeezed his nipples." Correct? A. Correct. "Q. Was that part of the massage? "A. No. "Q. Okay. So other than squeeze his nipples and give him a massage, did you do anything else physically to Mr. Epstein? "A. No." Correct? A. Yes. But what does this have to do with what I'm here for today?
JUDGE NATHAN: Mr. Pagliuca, next question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor.
MR. PAGLIUCA: When you spoke to the agents in 2007, you did not say anything about Ghislaine Maxwell; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Is the answer to my question yes?
CAROLYN: The only thing Ms. Maxwell was involved in was fondling and touching my breasts and my buttocks, and for that, my soul is broken and so is my heart.
JUDGE NATHAN: Counsel.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I move to strike the answer and ask the Court to direct the witness to answer the question asked.
JUDGE NATHAN: Carolyn, you have to follow my rules here, you have to. Jury will disregard. I do direct the witness to respond to the questions. I'll give you an opportunity to explain and Ms. Comey will have an opportunity to redirect. Go ahead.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: The question was, in 2007, you never said anything to the FBI agents about Ms. Maxwell; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your two lawsuits involving Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen say nothing about Ms. Maxwell; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your deposition testimony in 2009 says nothing about Ms. Maxwell, other than the two words that Ms. Comey read; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Now, you also met with Ms.Villaflana (ph.) in Florida in 2007 with the government. Do you recall meeting with her?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Ms. Villaflana?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you recall that there was a second meeting with the government in 2007 in Florida which Ms.Villaflana attended? Do you remember that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: You never said anything to Ms.Villaflana or anyone else in the second meeting about Ms. Maxwell; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Between 2002 and 2003, you were in mental health counseling. Do you recall that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you remember Dr. Susan Pope?
MR. PAGLIUCA: All right.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I said counseling. So I will use your word, your therapist. Do you recall being in therapy with Dr. Pope?
MR. PAGLIUCA: You never mentioned Ms. Maxwell in therapy with Dr. Pope; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Now, you also met with Dr. Serge Thys?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Never mentioned Ms. Maxwell to him either; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: It's true, isn't it, Carolyn, that your story has changed significantly since 2007, 2008, and 2009; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And isn't it true -- well, first of all, you had no contact with the government between 2007 and 2019; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you recall that after you met with the agents in 2007, the next time you spoke with anyone from the FBI was March 19th, 2019? Do you recall that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And the agents contacted you and you told them that you wanted to talk to your lawyers before talking to them; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you got a hold of Mr. Scarola, who was your lawyer from before; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you spoke with Mr. Scarola? The government continued to try to contact you in 2019; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you didn't get back to them at all in 2019, did you?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, do you recall that Mr. Scarola forwarded a number of emails from the government to you in 2019 and you never responded to them?
MR. PAGLIUCA: You don't recall getting any emails from your lawyer --
MR. PAGLIUCA: My question is, do you recall getting any forwarded emails from the government from your lawyer?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you didn't respond to those in 2019; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Mr. Scarola also left you multiple --
JUDGE NATHAN: Just a second. Go ahead.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Mr. Scarola also left multiple voice messages for you with regard to the government, correct, in 2020?
MS. COMEY: Objection, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: If I can direct the witness to 3505 --
JUDGE NATHAN: No, question. What's your question?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I understand.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: The question is, you were aware that Mr. Scarola was leaving messages for you about contacting the government?
JUDGE NATHAN: Just a minute.
MS. COMEY: Objection.
JUDGE NATHAN: I sustained the objection. That's why I said go to the next question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I don't understand the basis for the objection, your Honor.
MS. COMEY: Privilege, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained. Sustained. Next question.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: You never responded to the government in 2020, based on any messages that were left on your phone; correct?
MS. COMEY: Your Honor --
JUDGE NATHAN: I'll allow that answer and now you'll move on.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I am, your Honor.
MR. PAGLIUCA: You first responded to the government in July of 2020 through Mr. Danchuk; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. You first responded to them through Mr. Danchuk; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And July 1, 2020, is one month after applications to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund were opened; correct?
MS. COMEY: Objection. Foundation.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: You knew that in June, one month earlier, applications were opened to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: In July 2020, your lawyer, Mr. Scarola, sent an email with a number of bullet points for the government to interview about; correct?
MS. COMEY: Objection. Foundation.
JUDGE NATHAN: Just a moment. Overruled. The question is, in July 2020, did Mr. Scarola send an email with a number of bullet points for the government to interview about.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I understand that. And those interviews with the government were a followup to the email that Mr. Scarola sent on your behalf as your agent on July 16th, 2020; correct?
MS. COMEY: Objection, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained on foundation.
MR. PAGLIUCA: You were aware that Mr. Scarola sent the email with the bullet points to the government in advance of you meeting with the government; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And there are materials shown to you in advance of your meeting with the government; correct?
MS. COMEY: Objection, your Honor. We're veering into privileged territory.
JUDGE NATHAN: You need to clarify the question so I can respond to that objection.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm not asking for any communications, your Honor. I'm just talking about materials shown to her --
JUDGE NATHAN: By her attorney, you're asking her what materials her attorney showed her?
MR. PAGLIUCA: In advance of meeting with the government, yes.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
JUDGE NATHAN: I sustained it.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: You were present with Mr. Scarola and other lawyers on multiple occasions meeting with the government; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And this was at the same time that you were submitting your Epstein Victim Compensation Fund request; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, do you recall meeting with the government in July of 2020?
JUDGE NATHAN: Do you recall meeting with the government in July 2020.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. You can say you can't recall if you can't recall. A. I can't recall.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Do you recall meeting with the government -- let me ask the question. How many times do you recall meeting with the government in 2020?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Multiple times; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And do you recall submitting your application to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund in October of 2020?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Can we show the witness Exhibit C6, electronically, please, and let's go to the last page of the exhibit.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And there is a date on there, which is October 14th, 2020. Does that refresh your recollection as to when you submitted it?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And that's during the time that you were meeting with the government; correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: You could put the exhibit down?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, please.
MR. PAGLIUCA: And your Epstein Victim Compensation Fund submission is different from your two lawsuits against Epstein and Kellen; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Epstein Victim Compensation Fund has the date, May 1st, 2020, as the start date, not -- I'm sorry. 2001 as the start date; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: If we can show the witness that -- A. Can you repeat the question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Sure. If we can show the witness page 3 of C6, please.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm looking in the middle of the page, would that refresh your memory as to what the date was you were claiming the beginning date in the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund to get compensation?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And that's May 1st, 2001; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: In your Epstein victim fund compensation submission, you were claiming Epstein abused you beginning May 1, 2001; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And that's different from the two lawsuits that you filed --
MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay. This Epstein Victim Compensation Fund submission is also different because you added claims of vaginal penetration with fingers, sex toys, oral sex, and forged intercourse?
MR. PAGLIUCA: If we can show the witness page 4 of 11 in that same exhibit.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Does that refresh your recollection that, with the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund, you added claims of vaginal penetration with fingers and sex toys, oral sex, forged intercourse; true?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And that's different from your lawsuits against Epstein --
MR. PAGLIUCA: Kellen --
JUDGE NATHAN: Carolyn. Carolyn. You have to wait for the question to finish and then you may give your answer. Go ahead.
MR. PAGLIUCA: That's different from your lawsuits filed against Epstein and Kellen in 2008 and 2009; correct? Correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: The other difference between your 2008 and 2009 lawsuits and your Epstein Victim Compensation Fund request is that you included Ms. Maxwell in this Epstein victim fund request; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: As part of the Epstein Victim Fund request, you were awarded $3.25 million; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: If we can show the witness C7, and the bottom of the page, the number there.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Does that refresh your recollection --
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you. We can take the exhibit down.
MR. PAGLIUCA: You received $2,804,000; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: They subtracted $446,000 which had been previously paid for your claims against Mr. Epstein and Ms. Kellen; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Move to strike the answer, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Carolyn, you have to wait for my ruling when there is an objection.
JUDGE NATHAN: Objection sustained. Jury will disregard. I will direct the witness to answer the questions of Mr. Pagliuca. Ms. Comey will have an opportunity to come back and ask you additional questions. Go ahead.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: As part of this compensation fund, you know that if any of the information you've submitted is false, you can lose the money; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you know if any of the information you've submitted is false, you can be in criminal trouble; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: So there is an incentive for you to stick to your story; correct?
MS. COMEY: Objection, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Sustained.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Ms. Comey asked you some questions about your schizophrenia and issues related to your children. Do you recall that?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Isn't it true that you're worried about your children being taken away from you because you've lost custody in the past because of substance abuse issues?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Isn't it true -- I'm not asking what you said --
JUDGE NATHAN: Hang on a second. I'll direct the witness to answer the question and then Ms. Comey will have an opportunity to redirect. You may ask the question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Isn't it true that you're worried about your kids being taken away because you lost custody of the children --
MR. PAGLIUCA: -- in the past --
JUDGE NATHAN: You have to wait for the question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: -- because of substance abuse issues?
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Next question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: No further questions, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Ms. Comey.
MS. COMEY: Briefly, your Honor. Thank you.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I need to confer, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Let's go, counsel, because it's close to the end of the day.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I'm going to be very brief.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay. Mr. Pagliuca, now is your time?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. Got it. Your Honor, as I understand it, the prior testimony that's been read into the record is admitted; is that correct?
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, it's been read into the transcript.
JUDGE NATHAN: Correct.
BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: When you were talking to the government, you recall seeing a photograph of Ms. Maxwell pregnant; is that correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: One of your memories about Ms. Maxwell is you claim that you saw a photograph of her in Epstein's house, pregnant; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And pregnant.
MR. PAGLIUCA: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes, but Mr. Pagliuca, you got to --
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. Your Honor, I've handed the witness Defendant's Exhibit C10. The government has a copy.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I think I understand the Court's ruling that the interrogatories that we discussed are admitted; is that correct?
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes.
MR. PAGLIUCA: No further questions.
MS. COMEY: Three minutes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. COMEY: May I inquire?
JUDGE NATHAN: You may.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, did you write your civil complaint?
MS. COMEY: Did you write your application to the Epstein Victim Compensation Fund yourself?
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, when you were shown a report of an FBI interview, had you ever seen that report before today?
MS. COMEY: Did you write it yourself?
MS. COMEY: Did anyone ever ask you if it was accurate?
MS. COMEY: Do you know how old you were when you first saw Ghislaine Maxwell?
MS. COMEY: Do you know how old you were when you first went to Jeffrey Epstein's house?
MS. COMEY: Do you know what year it was?
MS. COMEY: Do you know what year it was when you were 14 years old, Carolyn?
MS. COMEY: Are you able to tell us what year it was when you were 15 years old?
MS. COMEY: Can you tell us what year it was when you were 13?
MS. COMEY: Did anyone tell you what to say here today on the stand?
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, are you trying to get money out of testifying here today?
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, why are you here today?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, I object. A. I'm so petrified that my daughters are --
JUDGE NATHAN: Carolyn, just a second. Just a second. I have to rule on an objection. Grounds.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, it's a narrative and it's --
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, an answer he doesn't like is not a narrative.
JUDGE NATHAN: Counsel, both of you need to behave.
MR. PAGLIUCA: I'm behaving, your Honor. It's a narrative --
JUDGE NATHAN: I understand. Just one word objection.
MR. PAGLIUCA: 404(b).
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. I'll let the answer in as it is. Next question.
BY MS. COMEY:
MS. COMEY: Carolyn, what have you been told by the government to do here today?
MS. COMEY: No further questions.
JUDGE NATHAN: Mr. Pagliuca.
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. PAGLIUCA:
MR. PAGLIUCA: The $446,000 that you received in 2009, that was gone by 2012; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: The $446,000 was gone by 2012; correct?
MS. COMEY: Beyond the scope, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Overruled.
MR. PAGLIUCA: You don't recall when you ran out of $446,000?
MR. PAGLIUCA: And you lost all of it; correct?
MR. PAGLIUCA: No further questions, your Honor.
MS. COMEY: Nothing, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: All right. Carolyn, you may step down, you are excused. Thank you.
(Witness excused)
JUDGE NATHAN: Members of the jury, we're about two minutes over. Thank you for your attention and diligence. We'll resume same time tomorrow. Thank you so much.
(Continued on next page)
(Jury not present)
JUDGE NATHAN: You my be seated. Matters to take up.
MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, the government has an update on its factual development with regard to the witness, Brian. The government is not going to be able to complete a factual investigation by 6 o'clock. Specifically, Jane's counsel is not available, so the government won't be able to talk with Jane as part of this. The government will just elect not to call Brian as a witness. We'll of course produce the materials we have gathered to the defense tonight. And I would just like to make a record that the government does not believe that any rule or order of the Court has been violated and the government's decision should not be understood in that light.
JUDGE NATHAN: Anything, Ms. Menninger?
MS. MENNINGER: No, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Any other matters to take up?
MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just if we could get a bit of the preview of the witness order since I think things have shuffled a bit in light of developments today.
JUDGE NATHAN: Can you give defense counsel a new witness list?
JUDGE NATHAN: I'll note, the Court did receive a request for a docketing of the witness list. The government submitted that with a request to file it under seal on the theory that it's not a judicial document, as I'm not doing anything with it, and even if it is a judicial document, it contains the names, it's identifying as to individuals who are testifying under pseudonym and individuals who haven't testified yet. For that reason, I'll permit it to be maintained under seal if you do share it with the Court.
MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. With respect to scheduling -- I'm sorry, may I have just one moment?
JUDGE NATHAN: Yes.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, with respect to scheduling, we did want to update the Court and counsel that we do anticipate that, given the current pace of scheduling, we will rest this week. So we want to let the Court know that, for scheduling purposes, giving the timing of the trial, that's our current update and estimate.
JUDGE NATHAN: That's helpful. I wanted to talk about the timing of the charging conference.
JUDGE NATHAN: Let me just pull up my calendar. Let me ask defense counsel, in light of that and in light of the fact that I'm, due to a scheduling conflict, not sitting 13th, 14th, 15th -- let me run this as an option. I have inquired whether we can hold the charging conference on Saturday the 18th. It is possible to have Ms. Maxwell present and to make public access available on that weekend date. So you can consider if you'd like to do that or not, given where we are in the schedule. I'll leave it to counsel to consider it and confer. Alternatively, I suppose we could talk about the charging conference on the 16th after we finish with the jury. Any thoughts?
MS. MOE: Your Honor, the government has no preference between those two dates and would be available for a December 18th conference. I think the timing would just depend on the length and pace of the defense case. For example, if the defense case were to begin on Friday, depending on how long that defense case were to last, it may be that we might need to have that conference earlier, but we don't have a sense of the length of the defense case, and so it's hard for us to gauge the timing.
MR. EVERDELL: May we confer, your Honor?
JUDGE NATHAN: You may. Let me ask, does the government anticipate -- I know it's a little hard to predict, but do you predict resting potentially by Thursday such that --
MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. It just depends on the length of cross of the remaining witnesses, but I think it is possible we will be resting on Thursday.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we do have witnesses, so we're going to have to sort through some logistics ourselves.
JUDGE NATHAN: I understand that.
MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think maybe if we have the opportunity to confer with the government, we can report tomorrow on the options.
JUDGE NATHAN: That's fine. I wanted to make that available so that we're not -- so we have time for it that isn't intruding into the time of the jury next week. So I think in light of what you're indicating, my thinking would be either the evening of the 16th or 17th, or Saturday the 18th. Again, I have inquired and there is no issue, Ms. Maxwell can be here and we can have public access both in the courtroom and overflow room. So you'll confer and let me know your thinking as to timing.
JUDGE NATHAN: Other matters to take up?
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, on that point, I would like to point out that we do have a younger sibling of Jane under our subpoena and I would ask, because we don't have communications with that witness, that when there are communications with Jane and her attorney, that she be directed not to communicate about her testimony with that witness in light of issues that I think are apparent that I can certainly make a record if need be.
MS. MOE: Your Honor, I have no issue with reaching out to Jane's attorney to remind him, again, about that issue. Happy to do that this evening. With respect to outstanding defense subpoenas, since we're talking about this issue, my understanding at this juncture is, because the witness identified as Matt has now testified, the witness identified as Brian is no longer testifying, that there will be no additional prior consistent statements with respect to Jane. We want to confirm that the defense is not seeking to recall Jane regarding any prior consistent statements so that she can be released for recall.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, we would like to just think about it tonight and can certainly let the Court know tomorrow.
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
JUDGE NATHAN: I'll ask you to confer and if it's an issue, raise it in the morning. Thank you for raising it, Ms. Moe.
JUDGE NATHAN: Any other matters?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I just needed to make a record on the objections. I can do that tomorrow if the Court wants me to, if the Court wants to leave. It's very brief.
JUDGE NATHAN: Go ahead.
MR. PAGLIUCA: So this is on the privilege objection, your Honor. The statement did not call for a communication. This was a request about materials shown to the witness in anticipation meeting with the government. Those are not privileged communications given that, whatever it is, is intended to be communicated to a third party, number 1, and number 2 --
JUDGE NATHAN: Well, I don't think you've made a record that any -- you asked generally about any materials shown to her. I don't think you've made a record that any materials shown to her were in anticipation of being -- how did you phrase it? Discussed with the government in the meeting?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, the Court sustained the objection and ordered me to move on, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: I understand. I'm just --
MR. PAGLIUCA: There was no opportunity to further that.
JUDGE NATHAN: Right. To be clear, I think the question was whether she was shown materials by her attorney, privilege objection sustained. There may have been other questions, I suppose that would have been different than that, but I sustained with respect to that question.
MR. PAGLIUCA: So, I'm not arguing with your Honor. I'm just completing out the record here, which is the question does not call for a privilege communication. It's a yes-or-no answer. Yes, I was shown materials. I don't believe that that's privileged because there is no communication required, number 1. Number 2, in the event those materials are shown to the government in a meeting, they lose any putative privilege that they may have. Number 3, to the extent that they're intended to be communicated to a third party, they are not privileged to begin with, even if they're not shown to the third party. I believe that's the status of the law and that's my record. Thank you.
JUDGE NATHAN: Again, you might have been able to get there, but the question that you asked, I sustained on privilege. Next, anything?
MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Was there another issue you wanted to make a record on, Mr. Pagliuca?
MR. PAGLIUCA: I don't think --
JUDGE NATHAN: If it occurs to you, you can make it in the morning.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: I do just want to, in an admonishment, because this has gotten a little out of hand. Objection, one-word grounds. Cite a rule of evidence if a rule of evidence is available. If it's not, then you probably don't have a basis for your objection. But if a rule number can't be used, one-word basis for grounds. No more communicating to the witnesses or the jury via objections. Understood?
MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor.
JUDGE NATHAN: Thank you. Have a goodnight, everyone. I'll see you -- sorry. Sorry. So we don't need any of the briefing related to the witness. So I think I'm not expecting anything tonight; is that true? It's like saying, oh, look, no traffic, but --
JUDGE NATHAN: Okay.
MS. MENNINGER: Nor from us.
JUDGE NATHAN: I thank everyone. Goodnight.
(Adjourned to December 8, 2021 at 8:45 a.m.) * * *