mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009411.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "122",
    "document_number": "1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 61102/20",
    "date": "02/24/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 61102/20 Filed 02/24/22 Page 122 of 130 A-5807 C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 350 1 in hindsight with respect to this proceeding, but I can see 2 with hindsight now how it might be construed in the way you 3 have suggested. But at the time when we were writing it we 4 were describing what happened when we received the letter on 5 June 20th. 6 Q. Well, it was worded that way because you and Ms. Brune had 7 had a discussion previously about what you were going to omit 8 from this brief, right? 9 A. No. The discussion I had with Ms. Brune was whether or not 10 we were going to say that prior to voir dire we had information 11 that there was a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad. 12 Q. And you agreed -- 13 A. We discussed it in the context of what was the standard for 14 waiver, what was the standard for juror misconduct cases, which 15 was actual knowledge. I was not focused, when we were writing 16 the brief, I was not focused on waiver. We didn't know they 17 were the same person. We just were trying to actually 18 establish that they were the same person and that, it took me a 19 long time for me to believe that they were the same person. 20 I really was not thinking about waiver. I know that 21 may be difficult for you to believe now when you're taking a 22 brief and looking at every sentence and trying to impart some 23 meaning to it or an impression that we were trying to create. 24 But that's not how we were writing it. 25 Q. Can you just answer the question that I asked? You just SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00009411",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 61102/20 Filed 02/24/22 Page 122 of 130",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-5807",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 350",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 in hindsight with respect to this proceeding, but I can see\n2 with hindsight now how it might be construed in the way you\n3 have suggested. But at the time when we were writing it we\n4 were describing what happened when we received the letter on\n5 June 20th.\n6 Q. Well, it was worded that way because you and Ms. Brune had\n7 had a discussion previously about what you were going to omit\n8 from this brief, right?\n9 A. No. The discussion I had with Ms. Brune was whether or not\n10 we were going to say that prior to voir dire we had information\n11 that there was a suspended lawyer named Catherine Conrad.\n12 Q. And you agreed --\n13 A. We discussed it in the context of what was the standard for\n14 waiver, what was the standard for juror misconduct cases, which\n15 was actual knowledge. I was not focused, when we were writing\n16 the brief, I was not focused on waiver. We didn't know they\n17 were the same person. We just were trying to actually\n18 establish that they were the same person and that, it took me a\n19 long time for me to believe that they were the same person.\n20 I really was not thinking about waiver. I know that\n21 may be difficult for you to believe now when you're taking a\n22 brief and looking at every sentence and trying to impart some\n23 meaning to it or an impression that we were trying to create.\n24 But that's not how we were writing it.\n25 Q. Can you just answer the question that I asked? You just",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009411",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Edelstein",
      "Ms. Brune",
      "Catherine Conrad"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "June 20th",
      "02/24/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "61102/20",
      "A-5807",
      "C2GFDAU3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009411"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. The text is typed, and there are no visible redactions or damage."
}