{
  "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-PAE Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 55 of 95 LCI1MAX1\n\nTHE COURT: And again, noting that that's why I gave the limiting instruction for Annie's testimony, that's why the limiting instruction did differ from the limiting instruction for Kate, because that is the Court's legal conclusion.\nMR. EVERDELL: Understood, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: So let me just make sure my clerks -- yeah. Right. My clerk has adopted the change on line 16, cutting the comma, \"when Annie was under the age of 18,\" comma.\nNext.\nMR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just to confirm, we are also eliminating, with the government's consent, No. 4, which refers to Kate, the overt act referring to Kate.\nTHE COURT: Yes. So eliminating entirely the overt act on line 18 through 20. And then we'll have to change the fifth one to 4 --\nMR. EVERDELL: Correct, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: -- on line 20. And that one looks like it can stay as is with the age.\nMR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: Okay.\nMR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, I think that that should be -- on line 21, it should still be changed to 17, even though --\nTHE COURT: Because of the --\nMR. ROHRBACH: Because of the legal count. It's the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 55 of 95 LCI1MAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "THE COURT: And again, noting that that's why I gave the limiting instruction for Annie's testimony, that's why the limiting instruction did differ from the limiting instruction for Kate, because that is the Court's legal conclusion.\nMR. EVERDELL: Understood, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: So let me just make sure my clerks -- yeah. Right. My clerk has adopted the change on line 16, cutting the comma, \"when Annie was under the age of 18,\" comma.\nNext.\nMR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just to confirm, we are also eliminating, with the government's consent, No. 4, which refers to Kate, the overt act referring to Kate.\nTHE COURT: Yes. So eliminating entirely the overt act on line 18 through 20. And then we'll have to change the fifth one to 4 --\nMR. EVERDELL: Correct, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: -- on line 20. And that one looks like it can stay as is with the age.\nMR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: Okay.\nMR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, I think that that should be -- on line 21, it should still be changed to 17, even though --\nTHE COURT: Because of the --\nMR. 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"
    }
  ],
  "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-PAE",
      "765",
      "4",
      "17",
      "18",
      "20",
      "21"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a discussion between the court and lawyers about changes to be made to a document. The text is mostly clear, but there are a few places where the conversation is cut off or incomplete."
}