mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010182.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "25",
    "document_number": "A-5927",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "CAC3PARC\n1 what was said was, look, don't be stupid, it can't be her, to\n2 do any more would be a waste of the court's time. That's what\n3 I think happened. That's what I think the record shows.\n4 The other is, let's be smart. She'll be a great juror\n5 because she is a suspended lawyer. Or, let's be smart. If we\n6 leave her on, we get two bites at the apple. The latter two I\n7 think are strategic, but be careful in the following sense.\n8 The first is a choice. It is a choice to do nothing. You\n9 cannot have a case in which there is not in a sense a choice if\n10 it's coming up in an ineffective assistance claim. I can cite\n11 you to Breakiron and Johnson v. Armontront. In our brief\n12 lawyers are making choices. In those cases the question is are\n13 they informed choices, are they reasonable choices, are they\n14 competent choices, are they strategic choices. And if the\n15 choice is don't be stupid, it can't be her, that is not a\n16 strategic choice, that is a tragic misjudgment. Implicit in\n17 the word \"misjudgment\" is that someone's making a choice. But\n18 if it is a tragic misjudgment, I think it's ineffective\n19 assistance.\n20 The next thing I'd say is this. We're told that there\n21 can't be any doubt that these transactions were effectuated so\n22 that there would be tax lawyers and tax losses in the prior\n23 year and it's ludicrous to think otherwise. Of course that's\n24 why the transactions were being done. There is no doubt that's\n25 why these transactions were being done in February or March.\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00010182",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CAC3PARC",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 what was said was, look, don't be stupid, it can't be her, to\n2 do any more would be a waste of the court's time. That's what\n3 I think happened. That's what I think the record shows.\n4 The other is, let's be smart. She'll be a great juror\n5 because she is a suspended lawyer. Or, let's be smart. If we\n6 leave her on, we get two bites at the apple. The latter two I\n7 think are strategic, but be careful in the following sense.\n8 The first is a choice. It is a choice to do nothing. You\n9 cannot have a case in which there is not in a sense a choice if\n10 it's coming up in an ineffective assistance claim. I can cite\n11 you to Breakiron and Johnson v. Armontront. In our brief\n12 lawyers are making choices. In those cases the question is are\n13 they informed choices, are they reasonable choices, are they\n14 competent choices, are they strategic choices. And if the\n15 choice is don't be stupid, it can't be her, that is not a\n16 strategic choice, that is a tragic misjudgment. Implicit in\n17 the word \"misjudgment\" is that someone's making a choice. But\n18 if it is a tragic misjudgment, I think it's ineffective\n19 assistance.\n20 The next thing I'd say is this. We're told that there\n21 can't be any doubt that these transactions were effectuated so\n22 that there would be tax lawyers and tax losses in the prior\n23 year and it's ludicrous to think otherwise. Of course that's\n24 why the transactions were being done. There is no doubt that's\n25 why these transactions were being done in February or March.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010182",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Breakiron",
      "Johnson",
      "Armontront"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "February",
      "March"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "A-5927",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010182"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}