{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "12",
    "document_number": "A-5914",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "CAC3PARC 12\n1 where you can have waiver, but ineffective assistance. And I\n2 think it is that that Judge Easterbrook had in mind when he\n3 said you have to think about each of these doctrines separately\n4 and you can probably have every combination of them.\n5 THE COURT: All right.\n6 MR. SHECHTMAN: Look, on the prejudice prong, I would\n7 just say this. There were acquittals on all but two of these\n8 counts. Mr. Parse is not situated that much differently than\n9 Mr. Brubaker, and the proof as it came in didn't come in much\n10 differently. There is a sort of lovely irony here that the\n11 government cooperator who the Jenkins lawyer dealt with him was\n12 actually a witness, and so, the Kramer Levin firm got to\n13 cross-examine him. And in a sense having him as a cooperator\n14 was helpful to their side because they established that their\n15 client, like the taxpayers and everyone else, was told\n16 repeatedly this is lawful. What distinguishes these two men is\n17 the, quote, backdate.\n18 And what I've tried to say in my papers is I think the\n19 government was very good at trial in turning this into a\n20 backdating case. I don't think that's what the Deutsche Bank\n21 records show. They are doing these in February and March and\n22 putting them on February and March statements and they're\n23 putting \"as of.\" They're then going out to what are very\n24 accomplished tax preparers who were getting February, March\n25 statements. And know there was a mistake and are then filing\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00010169",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CAC3PARC 12",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "where you can have waiver, but ineffective assistance. And I\nthink it is that that Judge Easterbrook had in mind when he\nsaid you have to think about each of these doctrines separately\nand you can probably have every combination of them.\nTHE COURT: All right.\nMR. SHECHTMAN: Look, on the prejudice prong, I would\njust say this. There were acquittals on all but two of these\ncounts. Mr. Parse is not situated that much differently than\nMr. Brubaker, and the proof as it came in didn't come in much\ndifferently. There is a sort of lovely irony here that the\ngovernment cooperator who the Jenkins lawyer dealt with him was\nactually a witness, and so, the Kramer Levin firm got to\ncross-examine him. And in a sense having him as a cooperator\nwas helpful to their side because they established that their\nclient, like the taxpayers and everyone else, was told\nrepeatedly this is lawful. What distinguishes these two men is\nthe, quote, backdate.\nAnd what I've tried to say in my papers is I think the\ngovernment was very good at trial in turning this into a\nbackdating case. I don't think that's what the Deutsche Bank\nrecords show. They are doing these in February and March and\nputting them on February and March statements and they're\nputting \"as of.\" They're then going out to what are very\naccomplished tax preparers who were getting February, March\nstatements. And know there was a mistake and are then filing",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010169",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Easterbrook",
      "Mr. Parse",
      "Mr. Brubaker",
      "Mr. Shechtman"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Kramer Levin",
      "Jenkins",
      "Deutsche Bank",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "February",
      "March"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "A-5914",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010169"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}