{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "48",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 48 of 197 2589 LCHVMAX2\n\n1 there were thousands of photographs seized, and that there was\n2 only obviously a subset that was presented to the jury.\n3 MS. MENNINGER: Right. Ms. Meder only was speaking to\n4 photographs, your Honor, not to the number of devices.\n5 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I would note that that was a\n6 situation where we called a witness affirmatively in our case\n7 to talk about photographic evidence that was seized; and then\n8 the defense properly cross-examined that witness about that\n9 evidence.\n10 What the defense is now suggesting they should be able\n11 to do is bring in a whole host of other investigative steps.\n12 There was Mr. Flatley, who testified about extraction from a\n13 single hard drive. I believe what Mr. Everdell is talking\n14 about is all of the other devices that were seized throughout\n15 the course of this investigation. And I think that that would\n16 be in violation of the Court's order. It would also be\n17 extremely confusing, because when we're talking about this\n18 investigation, it's a little ambiguous what we're talking\n19 about, as we alluded to earlier. This investigation was\n20 broader than just what resulted in these charges.\n21 MS. MENNINGER: Well, your Honor, there was a search\n22 that the government elicited information about that occurred in\n23 2019 of our alleged co-conspirator's home. The question can be\n24 phrased because they --\n25 THE COURT: Which witness was that?\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00014154",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 48 of 197 2589 LCHVMAX2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 there were thousands of photographs seized, and that there was\n2 only obviously a subset that was presented to the jury.\n3 MS. MENNINGER: Right. Ms. Meder only was speaking to\n4 photographs, your Honor, not to the number of devices.\n5 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I would note that that was a\n6 situation where we called a witness affirmatively in our case\n7 to talk about photographic evidence that was seized; and then\n8 the defense properly cross-examined that witness about that\n9 evidence.\n10 What the defense is now suggesting they should be able\n11 to do is bring in a whole host of other investigative steps.\n12 There was Mr. Flatley, who testified about extraction from a\n13 single hard drive. I believe what Mr. Everdell is talking\n14 about is all of the other devices that were seized throughout\n15 the course of this investigation. And I think that that would\n16 be in violation of the Court's order. It would also be\n17 extremely confusing, because when we're talking about this\n18 investigation, it's a little ambiguous what we're talking\n19 about, as we alluded to earlier. This investigation was\n20 broader than just what resulted in these charges.\n21 MS. MENNINGER: Well, your Honor, there was a search\n22 that the government elicited information about that occurred in\n23 2019 of our alleged co-conspirator's home. The question can be\n24 phrased because they --\n25 THE COURT: Which witness was that?",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014154",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Menninger",
      "Ms. Meder",
      "Ms. Comey",
      "Mr. Flatley",
      "Mr. Everdell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014154"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}