mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020859.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "33",
    "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 33 of 221\nA-233\n3150\nLCSCMAXT\n1    can be relevant to an intent to transport to New York to engage\n2    in sexual activity under the age of 17, I think. I think this\n3    is the same basic discussion that we've had. So, in addition\n4    to my reasoning yesterday, I think the proposal made by the\n5    defense is wrong.\n6    I continue to not know how to parse the jury's\n7    question exactly, other than to know that they are asking about\n8    Count Four, the defense's original suggestion to just point to\n9    the motivating factor I rejected language or to say no. To say\n10   no, I think, was the wrong course, because I don't understand\n11   the question well enough to be able to say no.\n12   Pointing to just the motivating factor language I\n13   think was unhelpful because, really, the point is to remind\n14   them of the whole instruction, including that it's a violation\n15   of New York penal law that's charged and is the illegal sexual\n16   activity that they're considering.\n17   So, for those reasons, I am in the same place.\n18   I did want to make a little bit of an additional\n19   record regarding my extending the deliberations by an hour, the\n20   instructions that I gave yesterday regarding that slightly\n21   extended schedule.\n22   I asked the jury to make themselves available to\n23   deliberate until at least 6:00 today, which is a one-hour\n24   extension of what's largely been our schedule. Although, it\n25   was until 6 o'clock, I think, on the first night of\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00020859",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page 33 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-233",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3150\nLCSCMAXT\n1    can be relevant to an intent to transport to New York to engage\n2    in sexual activity under the age of 17, I think. I think this\n3    is the same basic discussion that we've had. So, in addition\n4    to my reasoning yesterday, I think the proposal made by the\n5    defense is wrong.\n6    I continue to not know how to parse the jury's\n7    question exactly, other than to know that they are asking about\n8    Count Four, the defense's original suggestion to just point to\n9    the motivating factor I rejected language or to say no. To say\n10   no, I think, was the wrong course, because I don't understand\n11   the question well enough to be able to say no.\n12   Pointing to just the motivating factor language I\n13   think was unhelpful because, really, the point is to remind\n14   them of the whole instruction, including that it's a violation\n15   of New York penal law that's charged and is the illegal sexual\n16   activity that they're considering.\n17   So, for those reasons, I am in the same place.\n18   I did want to make a little bit of an additional\n19   record regarding my extending the deliberations by an hour, the\n20   instructions that I gave yesterday regarding that slightly\n21   extended schedule.\n22   I asked the jury to make themselves available to\n23   deliberate until at least 6:00 today, which is a one-hour\n24   extension of what's largely been our schedule. Although, it\n25   was until 6 o'clock, I think, on the first night of",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020859",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "3475901",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020859"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript. The text is clear and legible. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}