mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014277.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "171",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 171 of 197 2712 LCHVMAX6\n1 admission that he vacated East 69th in or about January '96, and then Judge Chin's decision making that finding of fact.\n2 There is one other document from that docket that we seek to admit, but under a separate rule of evidence, 804(b)(1).\n3 There was actually a deposition transcript from Mr. Epstein in which he is asked -- and it was taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.\n4 And he was asked in that deposition, Is it correct that you moved from the premises -- meaning East 69th -- to 9 East 71st Street in or around the beginning of '96?\n5 And Mr. Epstein responded, You asked me that question three times. I believe it is around then, but I don't know exactly when.\n6 This deposition excerpt was appended to a pleading that was submitted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in support of their case at docket number 52. So I believe that one is admissible under 804(b)(1), the deposition transcript.\n7 THE COURT: Okay. One at a time, Mr. Rohrbach.\n8 MR. ROHRBACH: Yes, your Honor.\n9 I will go through each of the documents, but just as a substantive point, this is very much like the 44 Kinnerton Street issues we've been talking about.\n10 And substantively --\n11 THE COURT: Microphone.\n12 MR. ROHRBACH: This is very much like the 44 Kinnerton\n13 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n14 DOJ-OGR-00014277",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 171 of 197 2712 LCHVMAX6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 admission that he vacated East 69th in or about January '96, and then Judge Chin's decision making that finding of fact.\n2 There is one other document from that docket that we seek to admit, but under a separate rule of evidence, 804(b)(1).\n3 There was actually a deposition transcript from Mr. Epstein in which he is asked -- and it was taken by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.\n4 And he was asked in that deposition, Is it correct that you moved from the premises -- meaning East 69th -- to 9 East 71st Street in or around the beginning of '96?\n5 And Mr. Epstein responded, You asked me that question three times. I believe it is around then, but I don't know exactly when.\n6 This deposition excerpt was appended to a pleading that was submitted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in support of their case at docket number 52. So I believe that one is admissible under 804(b)(1), the deposition transcript.\n7 THE COURT: Okay. One at a time, Mr. Rohrbach.\n8 MR. ROHRBACH: Yes, your Honor.\n9 I will go through each of the documents, but just as a substantive point, this is very much like the 44 Kinnerton Street issues we've been talking about.\n10 And substantively --\n11 THE COURT: Microphone.\n12 MR. ROHRBACH: This is very much like the 44 Kinnerton",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014277",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Chin",
      "Mr. Epstein",
      "Mr. Rohrbach"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Attorney's Office",
      "Southern District Reporters, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "East 69th",
      "9 East 71st Street",
      "New York",
      "44 Kinnerton Street"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "January '96",
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "52",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014277"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}