mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007124.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "73",
    "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 73 of 127\nLB1TMAX3\n1\nTHE COURT: That's because the relevant age of consent for purposes of the case that the government is trying to prove is the New York statute, which sets 17 as the age of consent, and this individual was -- sorry, under 17 is the age of consent, and this individual, when the government understands sexual conduct to have occurred, was 17, correct?\nMS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: Okay.\nMS. MOE: It's nonetheless our position this is direct evidence for a number of reasons. First, it's --\nTHE COURT: Direct evidence of what?\nMS. MOE: Of the charged conspiracy. In part because this conduct occurred at the same time the defendant was engaged in conduct with respect to the other victims, and her testimony will establish a pattern that is corroborative of their testimony and demonstrates the defendant's knowledge and intent.\nWith respect to the issue --\nTHE COURT: You've slid between direct evidence and 404(b), right, knowledge and intent?\nMS. MOE: No, your Honor. The government will certainly be required to prove at trial the defendant's knowledge and intent to commit these crimes. So the defendant's conduct with respect to this victim goes directly to that issue. In particular, I take the Court's point with\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00007124",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 73 of 127",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LB1TMAX3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1\nTHE COURT: That's because the relevant age of consent for purposes of the case that the government is trying to prove is the New York statute, which sets 17 as the age of consent, and this individual was -- sorry, under 17 is the age of consent, and this individual, when the government understands sexual conduct to have occurred, was 17, correct?\nMS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: Okay.\nMS. MOE: It's nonetheless our position this is direct evidence for a number of reasons. First, it's --\nTHE COURT: Direct evidence of what?\nMS. MOE: Of the charged conspiracy. In part because this conduct occurred at the same time the defendant was engaged in conduct with respect to the other victims, and her testimony will establish a pattern that is corroborative of their testimony and demonstrates the defendant's knowledge and intent.\nWith respect to the issue --\nTHE COURT: You've slid between direct evidence and 404(b), right, knowledge and intent?\nMS. MOE: No, your Honor. The government will certainly be required to prove at trial the defendant's knowledge and intent to commit these crimes. So the defendant's conduct with respect to this victim goes directly to that issue. In particular, I take the Court's point with",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007124",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "THE COURT",
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007124"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}