DOJ-OGR-00018802.jpg

be NO Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO Ke) a oO he be No (ee) = Hs Oo _ OY a ~] a oO a Ke} 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE LC 7VMAX7 THE COURT MR the direct t Document 753 ~—«~Filed 08/10/22 Page 204 of 264 1645 Carolyn - cross : Okay. Should I look at 33? PAGLIUCA: Yes, 33. The first inconsistency with stimony is the date, July of 2002. THE COURT : 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. THE 25 can track you. COURT : So you have to use a full sentence so I She said the first incident was in 2001. MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. THE COURT: She then talked about 100 additional incidents -—- MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. THE COURT: over the course of at least a couple of years. So what's inconsistent in July of 2002, she again returned to? MR. complaint. PAGLIUCA: This is chronological through this This complaint goes from -—- 2002 is the beginning spot, and goes through 2003. So the entirety of the allegation is that thes and 2004. And so e event ts occurred between 2002 and 2003, not 2001 this is impeachment on the time frame that is alleged in the indictment and testified to by the witness on direct examination. THE COURT : Is there a paragraph that talks about the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00018802