{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "325",
    "document_number": "A-5782",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "Court Transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 325\n1 attorney?\n2 A. I don't believe she had formed a belief about the New York\n3 attorney. She mentioned that there was an attorney, a\n4 suspended attorney with the same name, and that after having\n5 received the note from Juror No. 1 that mentioned several legal\n6 concepts, she had thought that could it possibly be they were\n7 the same person.\n8 Q. And at what point did you ask Ms. Trzaskoma for the\n9 evidence, the underlying documents or information that led her\n10 to believe that there was a possible connection between Juror\n11 No. 1 and the suspended New York attorney?\n12 A. I didn't realize that there was a document that she was\n13 basing any belief on. It was the fact that there was a\n14 suspended lawyer with the same name.\n15 Q. Well, didn't you ask how did you form this belief or what\n16 did you look at to see that there was a suspended New York\n17 attorney? Did you ask that question?\n18 MR. GAIR: Objection. Three questions. Compound.\n19 THE COURT: Overruled.\n20 A. No, I did not.\n21 Q. So do you mean to tell us that you at no point asked\n22 Theresa Trzaskoma for what underlying information she saw that\n23 led her to believe that there was a possible connection between\n24 Juror No. 1 and the suspended New York attorney? Yes or no.\n25 A. I'm not sure that was a yes or no question, but she\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00010065",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 325",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 attorney?\n2 A. I don't believe she had formed a belief about the New York\n3 attorney. She mentioned that there was an attorney, a\n4 suspended attorney with the same name, and that after having\n5 received the note from Juror No. 1 that mentioned several legal\n6 concepts, she had thought that could it possibly be they were\n7 the same person.\n8 Q. And at what point did you ask Ms. Trzaskoma for the\n9 evidence, the underlying documents or information that led her\n10 to believe that there was a possible connection between Juror\n11 No. 1 and the suspended New York attorney?\n12 A. I didn't realize that there was a document that she was\n13 basing any belief on. It was the fact that there was a\n14 suspended lawyer with the same name.\n15 Q. Well, didn't you ask how did you form this belief or what\n16 did you look at to see that there was a suspended New York\n17 attorney? Did you ask that question?\n18 MR. GAIR: Objection. Three questions. Compound.\n19 THE COURT: Overruled.\n20 A. No, I did not.\n21 Q. So do you mean to tell us that you at no point asked\n22 Theresa Trzaskoma for what underlying information she saw that\n23 led her to believe that there was a possible connection between\n24 Juror No. 1 and the suspended New York attorney? Yes or no.\n25 A. I'm not sure that was a yes or no question, but she",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010065",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Edelstein",
      "Trzaskoma",
      "Gair"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "A-5782",
      "C2GFDAU3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010065"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear structure of questions and answers. The text is mostly legible, with some minor formatting issues. There are no visible redactions or significant damage."
}