mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020847.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "21",
    "document_number": "58",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "Court Transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 21 of 221\nA-221\n3140\nLCRVMAXT\n1    instruction. Clearly they are making an error concerning which\n2    state begins with \"New.\" And I suggest that if the Court\n3    wishes to refer them to the charge, the Court also clears up\n4    the fact that Count Four requires a violation of New York law,\n5    not New Mexico law.\n6        THE COURT: That's certainly why we should refer them\n7    to the whole charge. That's what lines 7 through 10 make\n8    clear.\n9        MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.\n10\n11   The only illegal sexual activity identified in the\n12   entirety of the jury charge is a statute in New York. There\n13   cannot be any risk of confusion on that score. This particular\n14   charge reminds the jury of that and includes that language as\n15   well. The jury has not been charged about any laws in New\n16   Mexico; so there can't be any risk of confusion for exactly\n17   that reason.\n18       MR. EVERDELL: I just don't understand the confidence\n19   about how there can be no possible confusion --\n20       THE COURT: This conversation is stopping.\n21       My decision is to refer them back to this charge,\n22   because it is a proper instruction on the second element to\n23   Count Four. I do not know what this question means. It's too\n24   difficult to parse factually and legally what they're asking.\n25       So the only option in those circumstances is to direct them\n26   back to the count.\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00020847",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 21 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3140\nLCRVMAXT\n1    instruction. Clearly they are making an error concerning which\n2    state begins with \"New.\" And I suggest that if the Court\n3    wishes to refer them to the charge, the Court also clears up\n4    the fact that Count Four requires a violation of New York law,\n5    not New Mexico law.\n6        THE COURT: That's certainly why we should refer them\n7    to the whole charge. That's what lines 7 through 10 make\n8    clear.\n9        MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.\n10\n11   The only illegal sexual activity identified in the\n12   entirety of the jury charge is a statute in New York. There\n13   cannot be any risk of confusion on that score. This particular\n14   charge reminds the jury of that and includes that language as\n15   well. The jury has not been charged about any laws in New\n16   Mexico; so there can't be any risk of confusion for exactly\n17   that reason.\n18       MR. EVERDELL: I just don't understand the confidence\n19   about how there can be no possible confusion --\n20       THE COURT: This conversation is stopping.\n21       My decision is to refer them back to this charge,\n22   because it is a proper instruction on the second element to\n23   Count Four. I do not know what this question means. It's too\n24   difficult to parse factually and legally what they're asking.\n25       So the only option in those circumstances is to direct them\n26   back to the count.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020847",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MOE",
      "MR. EVERDELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "New Mexico"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "3475901",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020847"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}