mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010180.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "23",
    "document_number": "A-5925",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "23\nCAC3PARC 23\n1 has stated that you can find that where there has been a split\n2 verdict, as is the case with Mr. Parse, that is evidence of a\n3 lack of prejudice. We had argued in the original motion for\n4 new trial and we renew that as well.\n5 Finally, your Honor, with regard to the letter of\n6 Catherine Conrad to the government which was referenced in the\n7 defendant's briefing, she talked about their discussions and\n8 deliberations with regard to David Parse. And interestingly\n9 what she also said, which was not mentioned when Mr. Shechtman in\n10 his brief, was that that struggle ended when they asked the\n11 Court to reread the definitions of wilfully and knowingly.\n12 Different states for different counts.\n13 MR. SHECHTMAN: Well, I'll wait. I apologize to the\n14 Court.\n15 MS. DAVIS: And interestingly, their verdict exactly\n16 tracked that difference between wilfully, this was required in\n17 the conspiracy count and for the tax evasion counts, and\n18 knowingly which was really the mens rea relating to other ones.\n19 So you might say that they had a struggle.\n20 To the extent we can even be considering that letter\n21 at all because of Rule 606(b), but I think it's quite clear\n22 that they made a deliberate and informed decision about making\n23 a distinction drawn on the evidence as apply to the law. Thank\n24 you.\n25 THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Davis.\nTHE SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CAC3PARC\nhas stated that you can find that where there has been a split\nverdict, as is the case with Mr. Parse, that is evidence of a\nlack of prejudice. We had argued in the original motion for\nnew trial and we renew that as well.\nFinally, your Honor, with regard to the letter of\nCatherine Conrad to the government which was referenced in the\ndefendant's briefing, she talked about their discussions and\ndeliberations with regard to David Parse. And interestingly\nwhat she also said, which was not mentioned when Mr. Shechtman in\nhis brief, was that that struggle ended when they asked the\nCourt to reread the definitions of wilfully and knowingly.\nDifferent states for different counts.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "MR. SHECHTMAN: Well, I'll wait. I apologize to the\nCourt.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "MS. DAVIS: And interestingly, their verdict exactly\ntracked that difference between wilfully, this was required in\nthe conspiracy count and for the tax evasion counts, and\nknowingly which was really the mens rea relating to other ones.\nSo you might say that they had a struggle.\nTo the extent we can even be considering that letter\nat all because of Rule 606(b), but I think it's quite clear\nthat they made a deliberate and informed decision about making\na distinction drawn on the evidence as apply to the law. Thank\nyou.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Davis.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Catherine Conrad",
      "David Parse",
      "Mr. Shechtman",
      "Ms. Davis"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "A-5925",
      "Rule 606(b)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript, likely from a federal court case. The text is mostly printed, with some dialogue between court officials and lawyers. The document is in good condition, with clear text and no visible redactions or damage."
}