{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "32",
    "document_number": "536",
    "date": "12/10/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 536 Filed 12/10/21 Page 32 of 43 32 LBNAMAXTps\n\n1 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. I mean, it's the defense's position that the Court's instruction is a correct statement of law. It's concise, it's clear, and will clarify the issues for the jurors as opposed to confuse the issues. I think the government's instruction is exactly the opposite. It is cumbersome, it is difficult to follow, and it will confuse rather than to clarify.\n\n2 And I will just point out, I think your Honor identified the correct example, which is Accuser 2, which is alleged events that took place in New Mexico when she was above the age of consent for those acts in New Mexico.\n\n3 And so this illustrates the problem of trying to prove a conspiracy where the illegal sexual activity is a violation of New York law with acts that took place in other jurisdictions which were legal and have nothing to do with New York law.\n\n4 So as I think you've discussed before, your Honor, if the witness is going to testify to these events that took place in New Mexico, even though they're legal under New York law -- there's no issue there -- they're going to --\n\n5 THE COURT: Not under New York law.\n\n6 MR. EVERDELL: Under New Mexico law. I'm sorry. I misspoke. Under New Mexico law.\n\n7 THE COURT: Right.\n\n8 MR. EVERDELL: They're going to assume that the\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00008342",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 536 Filed 12/10/21 Page 32 of 43 32 LBNAMAXTps",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. I mean, it's the defense's position that the Court's instruction is a correct statement of law. It's concise, it's clear, and will clarify the issues for the jurors as opposed to confuse the issues. I think the government's instruction is exactly the opposite. It is cumbersome, it is difficult to follow, and it will confuse rather than to clarify.\n\n2 And I will just point out, I think your Honor identified the correct example, which is Accuser 2, which is alleged events that took place in New Mexico when she was above the age of consent for those acts in New Mexico.\n\n3 And so this illustrates the problem of trying to prove a conspiracy where the illegal sexual activity is a violation of New York law with acts that took place in other jurisdictions which were legal and have nothing to do with New York law.\n\n4 So as I think you've discussed before, your Honor, if the witness is going to testify to these events that took place in New Mexico, even though they're legal under New York law -- there's no issue there -- they're going to --\n\n5 THE COURT: Not under New York law.\n\n6 MR. EVERDELL: Under New Mexico law. I'm sorry. I misspoke. Under New Mexico law.\n\n7 THE COURT: Right.\n\n8 MR. EVERDELL: They're going to assume that the",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00008342",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New Mexico",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "12/10/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "536",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008342"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}