{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "152",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 152 of 239\n\nthe victims specified in the Indictment about sexualized massages the victims provided to Epstein, conduct that obviously predated the deposition. See Indictment ¶ 7(a), (c). In context, and with an understanding of the Government's other evidence, a rational juror could readily conclude that the question \"did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages . . . [i]f you know?\" had a clear meaning, and more important for purposes of the instant motion, any ambiguity was not \"fundamental.\" Cf. Triumph Capital Grp., Inc., 237 F. App'x at 628 (concluding that an answer about \"this arrangement\" was not fundamentally ambiguous).\n\nNor is there any basis to dismiss the count now based on the defendant's professed confusion or denial of knowledge of the scheme's existence. A defendant may commit perjury by falsely denying memory or knowledge of an event. See, e.g., United States v. Alberti, 568 F.2d 617, 625 (2d Cir. 1977); United States v. Weiner, 479 F.2d 923, 926, 929 (2d Cir. 1973); Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 410-11. Viewing the question and answer \"in the context of the line of questioning as a whole,\" the defendant \"consistently denied\" knowledge of Epstein's scheme, Markiewicz, 978 F.2d at 810, and a jury could conclude that the \"question was not fundamentally ambiguous—and thus that [the defendant], understanding the question, lied.\" See Sampson, 898 F.3d at 307; cf. Indictment ¶¶ 4(e) 11(c)-(d), 17(c)-(d) (discussing use of massage as part of the sexual abuse scheme).\n\nSecond, later in the deposition, Giuffre's counsel asked the defendant a series of questions in an attempt to identify other underage girls that the defendant met and brought to Epstein. Specifically:\n\nQ. Can you list for me all the girls that you have met and brought to Jeffrey Epstein's house that were under the age of 18?\n\nMR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation.\n\n125\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003086",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 152 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the victims specified in the Indictment about sexualized massages the victims provided to Epstein, conduct that obviously predated the deposition. See Indictment ¶ 7(a), (c). In context, and with an understanding of the Government's other evidence, a rational juror could readily conclude that the question \"did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages . . . [i]f you know?\" had a clear meaning, and more important for purposes of the instant motion, any ambiguity was not \"fundamental.\" Cf. Triumph Capital Grp., Inc., 237 F. App'x at 628 (concluding that an answer about \"this arrangement\" was not fundamentally ambiguous).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Nor is there any basis to dismiss the count now based on the defendant's professed confusion or denial of knowledge of the scheme's existence. A defendant may commit perjury by falsely denying memory or knowledge of an event. See, e.g., United States v. Alberti, 568 F.2d 617, 625 (2d Cir. 1977); United States v. Weiner, 479 F.2d 923, 926, 929 (2d Cir. 1973); Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 410-11. Viewing the question and answer \"in the context of the line of questioning as a whole,\" the defendant \"consistently denied\" knowledge of Epstein's scheme, Markiewicz, 978 F.2d at 810, and a jury could conclude that the \"question was not fundamentally ambiguous—and thus that [the defendant], understanding the question, lied.\" See Sampson, 898 F.3d at 307; cf. Indictment ¶¶ 4(e) 11(c)-(d), 17(c)-(d) (discussing use of massage as part of the sexual abuse scheme).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, later in the deposition, Giuffre's counsel asked the defendant a series of questions in an attempt to identify other underage girls that the defendant met and brought to Epstein. Specifically:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Q. Can you list for me all the girls that you have met and brought to Jeffrey Epstein's house that were under the age of 18?\n\nMR. PAGLIUCA: Objection to the form and foundation.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "125",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003086",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Giuffre",
      "Alberti",
      "Weiner",
      "Forde",
      "Markiewicz",
      "Sampson",
      "Pagliuca"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Epstein's house"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003086"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}