{ "document_metadata": { "page_number": "12", "document_number": "769", "date": "08/10/22", "document_type": "court transcript", "has_handwriting": false, "has_stamps": false }, "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 769 Filed 08/10/22 Page 12 of 19 3103 LCLVMAXT\n1 THE COURT: Mr. Everdell.\n2 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think --\n3 THE COURT: Clearly the substantive answer is yes.\n4 MR. EVERDELL: Well, I think, as we've discussed in the briefing and in the limiting instruction, the answer is a little more complicated than --\n5\n6\n7 THE COURT: Well, your view is more complicated. You took a different view. I have ruled differently. And so I think based -- I think it's clear based on my rulings the answer to the question is yes.\n8\n9\n10\n11 MR. EVERDELL: I think what we should do is give the jury the same limiting instruction as to her testimony that you gave before her testimony; because I think that actually gives the jury exactly what they can consider and not consider her testimony for.\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, the limiting instruction was targeted at Counts Two and Four, the substantive counts, to make clear that Annie's testimony was not the basis of a substantive count. I don't think it's necessary for Counts One and Three. I think the answer is clearly yes, made all the more so by the fact that Annie's testimony or a part of it is referenced as an overt act in the indictment in the instructions. I think the simplest answer and the correct answer is yes.\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25 MR. EVERDELL: I don't think it's correct at all that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00017290", "text_blocks": [ { "type": "printed", "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 769 Filed 08/10/22 Page 12 of 19 3103 LCLVMAXT", "position": "header" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "1 THE COURT: Mr. Everdell.\n2 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think --\n3 THE COURT: Clearly the substantive answer is yes.\n4 MR. EVERDELL: Well, I think, as we've discussed in the briefing and in the limiting instruction, the answer is a little more complicated than --\n5\n6\n7 THE COURT: Well, your view is more complicated. You took a different view. I have ruled differently. And so I think based -- I think it's clear based on my rulings the answer to the question is yes.\n8\n9\n10\n11 MR. EVERDELL: I think what we should do is give the jury the same limiting instruction as to her testimony that you gave before her testimony; because I think that actually gives the jury exactly what they can consider and not consider her testimony for.\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, the limiting instruction was targeted at Counts Two and Four, the substantive counts, to make clear that Annie's testimony was not the basis of a substantive count. I don't think it's necessary for Counts One and Three. I think the answer is clearly yes, made all the more so by the fact that Annie's testimony or a part of it is referenced as an overt act in the indictment in the instructions. I think the simplest answer and the correct answer is yes.\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25 MR. EVERDELL: I don't think it's correct at all that", "position": "main" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300", "position": "footer" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "DOJ-OGR-00017290", "position": "footer" } ], "entities": { "people": [ "Mr. Everdell", "Annie", "MS. COMEY" ], "organizations": [ "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C." ], "locations": [], "dates": [ "08/10/22" ], "reference_numbers": [ "1:20-cr-00330-PAE", "769", "DOJ-OGR-00017290" ] }, "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a discussion between the court and lawyers regarding a limiting instruction for a witness's testimony. The document is well-formatted and easy to read." }