{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "55",
    "document_number": "765",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 55 of 95 2793\n\n1 THE COURT: And again, noting that that's why I gave\n2 the limiting instruction for Annie's testimony, that's why the\n3 limiting instruction did differ from the limiting instruction\n4 for Kate, because that is the Court's legal conclusion.\n5 MR. EVERDELL: Understood, your Honor.\n6 THE COURT: So let me just make sure my clerks --\n7 yeah. Right. My clerk has adopted the change on line 16,\n8 cutting the comma, \"when Annie was under the age of 18,\" comma.\n9 Next.\n10 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just to confirm, we are\n11 also eliminating, with the government's consent, No. 4, which\n12 refers to Kate, the overt act referring to Kate.\n13 THE COURT: Yes. So eliminating entirely the overt\n14 act on line 18 through 20. And then we'll have to change the\n15 fifth one to 4 --\n16 MR. EVERDELL: Correct, your Honor.\n17 THE COURT: -- on line 20. And that one looks like it\n18 can stay as is with the age.\n19 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.\n20 THE COURT: Okay.\n21 MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, I think that that should\n22 be -- on line 21, it should still be changed to 17, even\n23 though --\n24 THE COURT: Because of the --\n25 MR. ROHRBACH: Because of the legal count. It's the\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00016981",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 55 of 95 2793",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 THE COURT: And again, noting that that's why I gave\n2 the limiting instruction for Annie's testimony, that's why the\n3 limiting instruction did differ from the limiting instruction\n4 for Kate, because that is the Court's legal conclusion.\n5 MR. EVERDELL: Understood, your Honor.\n6 THE COURT: So let me just make sure my clerks --\n7 yeah. Right. My clerk has adopted the change on line 16,\n8 cutting the comma, \"when Annie was under the age of 18,\" comma.\n9 Next.\n10 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just to confirm, we are\n11 also eliminating, with the government's consent, No. 4, which\n12 refers to Kate, the overt act referring to Kate.\n13 THE COURT: Yes. So eliminating entirely the overt\n14 act on line 18 through 20. And then we'll have to change the\n15 fifth one to 4 --\n16 MR. EVERDELL: Correct, your Honor.\n17 THE COURT: -- on line 20. And that one looks like it\n18 can stay as is with the age.\n19 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.\n20 THE COURT: Okay.\n21 MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, I think that that should\n22 be -- on line 21, it should still be changed to 17, even\n23 though --\n24 THE COURT: Because of the --\n25 MR. ROHRBACH: Because of the legal count. It's the",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00016981",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Annie",
      "Kate",
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "MR. ROHRBACH"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "765",
      "DOJ-OGR-00016981"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}