mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00016827.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "98",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 98 of 197 2639 LCHCmax3 Dubin - direct 1 what I allowed in overruling your motion to preclude is timeframed. So you want the timeframe narrowed to the window in which the witness testified that there was sexualized massages with -- 5 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, and limited to particular individuals who are at issue in this case. It's not before the jury whether Maxwell and Epstein committed misconduct with other people, the question is whether she has relevant knowledge about misconduct with the people who are at issue in this case. The absence of misconduct with other people who are not at issue in this case is not relevant. 12 THE COURT: I think you should narrow the timeframe in which the witness testifies. 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: I can do that, your Honor. 14 Just so the record is clear, I don't believe this was litigated at all pretrial. This witness was not questioned about Ms. Maxwell or not being there, which were litigated pretrial. This really is foundational to the next question, which is going to be after she stopped dating him, which is then into the relevant timeframe, did she see any of this activity, any of which she considered to be inappropriate activity. So that's actually the next question. So I'm moving out of this into that. But it seems to me to be logically relevant, your Honor, frankly because if she had seen any of that activity, I doubt she would have been dating him or would 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00016827",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 98 of 197 2639 LCHCmax3 Dubin - direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 what I allowed in overruling your motion to preclude is timeframed. So you want the timeframe narrowed to the window in which the witness testified that there was sexualized massages with -- 5 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, and limited to particular individuals who are at issue in this case. It's not before the jury whether Maxwell and Epstein committed misconduct with other people, the question is whether she has relevant knowledge about misconduct with the people who are at issue in this case. The absence of misconduct with other people who are not at issue in this case is not relevant. 12 THE COURT: I think you should narrow the timeframe in which the witness testifies. 13 MR. PAGLIUCA: I can do that, your Honor. 14 Just so the record is clear, I don't believe this was litigated at all pretrial. This witness was not questioned about Ms. Maxwell or not being there, which were litigated pretrial. This really is foundational to the next question, which is going to be after she stopped dating him, which is then into the relevant timeframe, did she see any of this activity, any of which she considered to be inappropriate activity. So that's actually the next question. So I'm moving out of this into that. But it seems to me to be logically relevant, your Honor, frankly because if she had seen any of that activity, I doubt she would have been dating him or would 25",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00016827",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Ms. Moe",
      "Mr. Pagliuca"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00016827"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}