mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014382.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "78 of 95",
    "document_number": "765",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 78 of 95 2816 LCIAMAX2ps\n1 objected to.\n2 So here's just a slight change. Line 4. \"Each party had an opportunity to call any of these witnesses.\"\n3\n4 MR. EVERDELL: We would accept that, your Honor.\n5 THE COURT: It's a similar meaning. It's not quite equal. I'll adopt that. \"Each party had an opportunity to call any of the witnesses.\"\n6\n7\n8 MR. ROHRBACH: If your Honor is thinking of that change, we would ask to just include that in our letter later.\n9\n10 THE COURT: That's fine. So the proposal would be that, line 1, cut \"equally available to both sides\" from the heading, and then, line 4, cut \"equal opportunity or lack of opportunity\" and change to \"an opportunity.\"\n11\n12\n13 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.\n14\n15 THE COURT: I think it's clearly true, Mr. Rohrbach, this is standard language, and I've given it a slightly, slightly altered meaning, to take emphasis off of \"equal opportunity.\" So I think it still captures the meaning of the charge.\n16\n17\n18\n19 MR. ROHRBACH: I just -- we will think about it and include it in our letter. But just to preview for the Court, part of our concern is that the most obvious witness who was available to both sides and who we expect the defense to comment on is Virginia Roberts, who was described as a victim but did not testify and she was fully available to the\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014382",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 78 of 95 2816 LCIAMAX2ps",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 objected to.\n2 So here's just a slight change. Line 4. \"Each party had an opportunity to call any of these witnesses.\"\n3\n4 MR. EVERDELL: We would accept that, your Honor.\n5 THE COURT: It's a similar meaning. It's not quite equal. I'll adopt that. \"Each party had an opportunity to call any of the witnesses.\"\n6\n7\n8 MR. ROHRBACH: If your Honor is thinking of that change, we would ask to just include that in our letter later.\n9\n10 THE COURT: That's fine. So the proposal would be that, line 1, cut \"equally available to both sides\" from the heading, and then, line 4, cut \"equal opportunity or lack of opportunity\" and change to \"an opportunity.\"\n11\n12\n13 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.\n14\n15 THE COURT: I think it's clearly true, Mr. Rohrbach, this is standard language, and I've given it a slightly, slightly altered meaning, to take emphasis off of \"equal opportunity.\" So I think it still captures the meaning of the charge.\n16\n17\n18\n19 MR. ROHRBACH: I just -- we will think about it and include it in our letter. But just to preview for the Court, part of our concern is that the most obvious witness who was available to both sides and who we expect the defense to comment on is Virginia Roberts, who was described as a victim but did not testify and she was fully available to the\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014382",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Everdell",
      "Mr. Rohrbach",
      "Virginia Roberts"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "765",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014382"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}