mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011710.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "45",
    "document_number": "741",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 741 Filed 08/10/22 Page 45 of 106 49 LBTCMAX2 Opening - Ms. Sternheim\n\n(At the sidebar)\nTHE COURT: This is not sealed. It's out of the earshot of the jury.\nState your objection.\nMS. COMEY: Your Honor, this is in violation of pretrial ruling made by the Court, including the defense, from arguing that the government was targeting this defendant --\nTHE COURT: And they may not do that. What they can do is argue that, for the witnesses, she's a scapegoat or a stand-in, and I think that's where we are in the line. I think the last statement comes closest because you put it in context of justice. The other ones, that's why I said as stated, were on the line about credibility of these witnesses and motives of witnesses and that, I think you agree, is permissible.\nMS. COMEY: That is permissible, your Honor. But the reference to an empty chair is clearly a reference to this case and the prosecution --\nTHE COURT: I won't allow the line to be crossed into where I ruled on, which is that you can't talk about motivations of the prosecution. The government is not on trial.\nTo the extent that you want to argue motivation of the witnesses to not tell the truth or credibility with respect to them, you may do that, but don't play with the line.\nMS. STERNHEIM: I will not. I will not play with the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 741 Filed 08/10/22 Page 45 of 106 49 LBTCMAX2 Opening - Ms. Sternheim",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(At the sidebar)\nTHE COURT: This is not sealed. It's out of the earshot of the jury.\nState your objection.\nMS. COMEY: Your Honor, this is in violation of pretrial ruling made by the Court, including the defense, from arguing that the government was targeting this defendant --\nTHE COURT: And they may not do that. What they can do is argue that, for the witnesses, she's a scapegoat or a stand-in, and I think that's where we are in the line. I think the last statement comes closest because you put it in context of justice. The other ones, that's why I said as stated, were on the line about credibility of these witnesses and motives of witnesses and that, I think you agree, is permissible.\nMS. COMEY: That is permissible, your Honor. But the reference to an empty chair is clearly a reference to this case and the prosecution --\nTHE COURT: I won't allow the line to be crossed into where I ruled on, which is that you can't talk about motivations of the prosecution. The government is not on trial.\nTo the extent that you want to argue motivation of the witnesses to not tell the truth or credibility with respect to them, you may do that, but don't play with the line.\nMS. STERNHEIM: I will not. I will not play with the",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Sternheim",
      "Ms. Comey"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "741"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a discussion between the court and lawyers regarding a pretrial ruling and the limits of argumentation during the trial. The text is mostly clear, with some minor formatting issues."
}