{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "76 of 95",
    "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 76 of 95 2814 LCIAMAX2ps\n\n1 that we intended to call as a witness.\n2 THE COURT: There was a lawyer letter indicating that\n3 they had received a subpoena and they intended to invoke. I\n4 asked many, many times if there was an application with respect\n5 to it. I never got one. So I'm not sure how to think of that.\n6 It's certainly true that, if someone invokes, the defense can't\n7 offer immunity the way that the government can. That's true in\n8 every case. This charge is quite standard, though standardly\n9 objected to, but I don't know that I see anything in this case\n10 that would distinguish its application based on what you've\n11 just indicated.\n12 MR. EVERDELL: In addition to what I had just\n13 indicated, just for purpose of completeness, there are a number\n14 of witnesses who, based on the witness testimony in this case,\n15 there would be people who the government -- who we normally may\n16 have considered calling as a witness but who the government\n17 clearly could have charged, criminally, based on the testimony\n18 we heard. And I won't name names if we don't want to do that.\n19 But I think we probably know who we're talking about here. And\n20 that is, you know, had we tried to call that witness or those\n21 witnesses, they undoubtedly would have invoked their Fifth\n22 Amendment rights. In fact, as some of them -- one of them was\n23 not called by the government and would have had to have been\n24 given statutory immunity or granted immunity to be able to\n25 testify, by the government, if they had decided to call them.\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00014380",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 76 of 95 2814 LCIAMAX2ps",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 that we intended to call as a witness.\n2 THE COURT: There was a lawyer letter indicating that\n3 they had received a subpoena and they intended to invoke. I\n4 asked many, many times if there was an application with respect\n5 to it. I never got one. So I'm not sure how to think of that.\n6 It's certainly true that, if someone invokes, the defense can't\n7 offer immunity the way that the government can. That's true in\n8 every case. This charge is quite standard, though standardly\n9 objected to, but I don't know that I see anything in this case\n10 that would distinguish its application based on what you've\n11 just indicated.\n12 MR. EVERDELL: In addition to what I had just\n13 indicated, just for purpose of completeness, there are a number\n14 of witnesses who, based on the witness testimony in this case,\n15 there would be people who the government -- who we normally may\n16 have considered calling as a witness but who the government\n17 clearly could have charged, criminally, based on the testimony\n18 we heard. And I won't name names if we don't want to do that.\n19 But I think we probably know who we're talking about here. And\n20 that is, you know, had we tried to call that witness or those\n21 witnesses, they undoubtedly would have invoked their Fifth\n22 Amendment rights. In fact, as some of them -- one of them was\n23 not called by the government and would have had to have been\n24 given statutory immunity or granted immunity to be able to\n25 testify, by the government, if they had decided to call them.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014380",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "765",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014380"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}