mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007094.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "43",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 43 of 127 43\n\n1 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, very briefly on the last\n2 issue. I assume that there won't be any argument by the\n3 government or their witnesses that they believe that they had\n4 an adjudication on the merits, in other words both the victims'\n5 compensation fund and the civil litigation, there was no right\n6 of confrontation, Ms. Maxwell wasn't a party to those\n7 settlement agreements. So, to the extent the government tries\n8 to suggest to the jury that they somehow had an adjudication,\n9 someone else found that their claims had merit, I think that\n10 would be confusing to the jury as well and I assume it would\n11 also be deemed by this Court to open the door to an explanation\n12 from the defense about what really happened in those\n13 proceedings.\n14 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.\n15 The government does not intend to elicit any testimony\n16 from the victims about being a prevailing party in any civil\n17 litigation or otherwise. To the extent the government elicits\n18 any testimony about civil litigation from the victims it would\n19 only be in order to front that issue for the jury in\n20 anticipation of cross-examination along those lines.\n21 THE COURT: Right.\n22 MS. MOE: The government certainly wouldn't be\n23 offering that evidence to suggest to the jury in any way that\n24 those were adjudications on the merits, nor could we, those\n25 were civil settlements.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00007094",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 43 of 127 43",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, very briefly on the last\n2 issue. I assume that there won't be any argument by the\n3 government or their witnesses that they believe that they had\n4 an adjudication on the merits, in other words both the victims'\n5 compensation fund and the civil litigation, there was no right\n6 of confrontation, Ms. Maxwell wasn't a party to those\n7 settlement agreements. So, to the extent the government tries\n8 to suggest to the jury that they somehow had an adjudication,\n9 someone else found that their claims had merit, I think that\n10 would be confusing to the jury as well and I assume it would\n11 also be deemed by this Court to open the door to an explanation\n12 from the defense about what really happened in those\n13 proceedings.\n14 MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.\n15 The government does not intend to elicit any testimony\n16 from the victims about being a prevailing party in any civil\n17 litigation or otherwise. To the extent the government elicits\n18 any testimony about civil litigation from the victims it would\n19 only be in order to front that issue for the jury in\n20 anticipation of cross-examination along those lines.\n21 THE COURT: Right.\n22 MS. MOE: The government certainly wouldn't be\n23 offering that evidence to suggest to the jury in any way that\n24 those were adjudications on the merits, nor could we, those\n25 were civil settlements.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007094",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MENNINGER",
      "MS. MOE",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007094"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}