mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014723.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "775",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 775 Filed 08/10/22 Page 7 of 16 3153 LCSCMAXT\nconduct that occurs solely in New Mexico, travels to and from New Mexico, solely in New Mexico cannot form the basis for a violation of New York law --\nTHE COURT: Again, using your language, cannot form a basis, would suggest it is irrelevant. I'll say that is wrong as a legal matter, number 1. Number 2, you didn't seek to exclude that testimony, nor did you seek a limiting instruction with respect to that testimony, and I think that was quite ripe for all of the reasons we've articulated.\nMR. EVERDELL: Yes. Although, I would point out we did, in the charging conference, request the inclusion of travel from Florida to New York to make clear that that was the required facts to be proven for those counts.\nIn any event, I think this is a time that calls for a supplemental instruction. I understand the Court has rejected --\nTHE COURT: I'm not going to give them an incorrect supplemental instruction.\nMR. EVERDELL: If the Court thinks the instruction that was proposed is incorrect, we can certainly work to draft a correct one. I think the jury is saying that they may convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on conduct that solely relates to New Mexico. I am not saying it is irrelevant. What I am saying is if all they had - which is what I think the note is saying - is travel to and from New Mexico and alleged sexual\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 775 Filed 08/10/22 Page 7 of 16 3153 LCSCMAXT",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "conduct that occurs solely in New Mexico, travels to and from New Mexico, solely in New Mexico cannot form the basis for a violation of New York law --\nTHE COURT: Again, using your language, cannot form a basis, would suggest it is irrelevant. I'll say that is wrong as a legal matter, number 1. Number 2, you didn't seek to exclude that testimony, nor did you seek a limiting instruction with respect to that testimony, and I think that was quite ripe for all of the reasons we've articulated.\nMR. EVERDELL: Yes. Although, I would point out we did, in the charging conference, request the inclusion of travel from Florida to New York to make clear that that was the required facts to be proven for those counts.\nIn any event, I think this is a time that calls for a supplemental instruction. I understand the Court has rejected --\nTHE COURT: I'm not going to give them an incorrect supplemental instruction.\nMR. EVERDELL: If the Court thinks the instruction that was proposed is incorrect, we can certainly work to draft a correct one. I think the jury is saying that they may convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on conduct that solely relates to New Mexico. I am not saying it is irrelevant. What I am saying is if all they had - which is what I think the note is saying - is travel to and from New Mexico and alleged sexual",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "MR. EVERDELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New Mexico",
      "New York",
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "775",
      "3153",
      "(212) 805-0300"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}