{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "31",
    "document_number": "36",
    "date": "07/24/19",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 36 Filed 07/24/19 Page 31 of 74 31\nrisk, that would suffice.\nMR. WEINBERG: I think I have to bear the burden of rebutting the presumption as to each prong, although I think once rebutting the burden falls on the government, and then they have different substantive burdens of proof. So danger. There are two categories of the dangers that have been identified by the government. Number one is simply the danger of recidivism which is the classic danger that results in detention when detention is predicated on danger.\nAnd Congress was very clear that they -- because the danger prong is predictive. It is not just was he a bad guy. Did he do things in the past. That's what a trial is for. That's what legal issues are for. It's can we infer from the past that he is a future danger and can we do it by clear and convincing evidence.\nIn terms of rebutting and the burden of production as to that part of the danger prong, 14 years, since 2005 until 2019. And the government, despite a website, despite their enormous ability to investigate -- and they've been investigating for months -- there is no allegation that Mr. Epstein, after 2005, engaged in illegal sexual activity with a minor.\nAgain, I'm not diminishing the gravity of the allegations in 2005 and 2004, but once he knew that he was\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00000541",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 36 Filed 07/24/19 Page 31 of 74 31",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "risk, that would suffice.\nMR. WEINBERG: I think I have to bear the burden of rebutting the presumption as to each prong, although I think once rebutting the burden falls on the government, and then they have different substantive burdens of proof. So danger. There are two categories of the dangers that have been identified by the government. Number one is simply the danger of recidivism which is the classic danger that results in detention when detention is predicated on danger.\nAnd Congress was very clear that they -- because the danger prong is predictive. It is not just was he a bad guy. Did he do things in the past. That's what a trial is for. That's what legal issues are for. It's can we infer from the past that he is a future danger and can we do it by clear and convincing evidence.\nIn terms of rebutting and the burden of production as to that part of the danger prong, 14 years, since 2005 until 2019. And the government, despite a website, despite their enormous ability to investigate -- and they've been investigating for months -- there is no allegation that Mr. Epstein, after 2005, engaged in illegal sexual activity with a minor.\nAgain, I'm not diminishing the gravity of the allegations in 2005 and 2004, but once he knew that he was",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000541",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. WEINBERG",
      "Mr. Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "Congress"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/24/19",
      "2005",
      "2019",
      "2004"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00490-RMB",
      "Document 36",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000541"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}