{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "12",
    "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 12 of 197 2553 LCFCmax1\n1 MR. EVERDELL: You did.\n2 THE COURT: Along with, I presume the government would\n3 seek to introduce the testimony?\n4 MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.\n5 MR. EVERDELL: That's right, your Honor.\n6 THE COURT: So a new witness --\n7 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I did not anticipate that\n8 the issue between ownership versus occupancy was going to be\n9 such a relevant issue, and so given that that came up in the\n10 course of discussing what the stipulation --\n11 THE COURT: Just to be clear, I considered that as to\n12 whether to allow you to introduce ownership documents. I'm\n13 allowing you to introduce ownership documents. Arguably, they\n14 were not relevant or marginally relevant, but a 403 issue\n15 because of the complications of ownership. If you can put in\n16 the ownership documents on stipulation as to the timing of\n17 ownership, I'm allowing that. It's not a basis -- because I\n18 almost excluded it, but didn't, that's not a basis to call a\n19 new witness.\n20 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, the stipulation would allow\n21 us to put in the ownership documents and the Court itself\n22 raised that there is an issue with residency or occupancy.\n23 THE COURT: I raised that in questioning whether the\n24 ownership documents were relevant. I'm allowing the ownership\n25 documents in. That's not a basis to call a new witness.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014118",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 12 of 197 2553 LCFCmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014118",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 MR. EVERDELL: You did.\n2 THE COURT: Along with, I presume the government would\n3 seek to introduce the testimony?\n4 MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.\n5 MR. EVERDELL: That's right, your Honor.\n6 THE COURT: So a new witness --\n7 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I did not anticipate that\n8 the issue between ownership versus occupancy was going to be\n9 such a relevant issue, and so given that that came up in the\n10 course of discussing what the stipulation --\n11 THE COURT: Just to be clear, I considered that as to\n12 whether to allow you to introduce ownership documents. I'm\n13 allowing you to introduce ownership documents. Arguably, they\n14 were not relevant or marginally relevant, but a 403 issue\n15 because of the complications of ownership. If you can put in\n16 the ownership documents on stipulation as to the timing of\n17 ownership, I'm allowing that. It's not a basis -- because I\n18 almost excluded it, but didn't, that's not a basis to call a\n19 new witness.\n20 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, the stipulation would allow\n21 us to put in the ownership documents and the Court itself\n22 raised that there is an issue with residency or occupancy.\n23 THE COURT: I raised that in questioning whether the\n24 ownership documents were relevant. I'm allowing the ownership\n25 documents in. That's not a basis to call a new witness.",
      "position": "main"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "MS. COMEY"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014118"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}