mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00016509.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "26",
    "document_number": "761",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 26 of 246 2321 LCGVMAX1\n1 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, yes. There's no dispute about that. This wouldn't impeach her.\n2 THE COURT: I understand it wouldn't impeach, but first we start with the relevance question. That's already in.\n3 MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor.\n4 THE COURT: Okay.\n5 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, we don't simply have to take the witness's testimony. We are allowed to show that same point through other evidence. And these photographs show that the relationship continued. And we are entitled to argue not just from the witness's testimony, but from these photographs, that there was a continuing relationship and what that means in the defense's estimation, how we view -- how we can argue to the jury what that means in terms of her state of mind.\n6 THE COURT: All right. That the point is already in establishes relevance. I don't think it's 403 prejudice to have duplicative evidence of the nature of the relationship. I don't hear an argument for prejudice otherwise. So obviously mindful of the need to continue to protect the anonymity of the witness, I would allow it.\n7 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.\n8 And I've met with the witness and I've impressed upon her that she should only use the name Jane. And if she's referring to Jane's family members, say the mother or the brothers, she will say it that way, Jane's mother, Jane's brothers,\n9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n10 DOJ-OGR-00016509",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 26 of 246 2321 LCGVMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, yes. There's no dispute about that. This wouldn't impeach her.\n2 THE COURT: I understand it wouldn't impeach, but first we start with the relevance question. That's already in.\n3 MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor.\n4 THE COURT: Okay.\n5 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, we don't simply have to take the witness's testimony. We are allowed to show that same point through other evidence. And these photographs show that the relationship continued. And we are entitled to argue not just from the witness's testimony, but from these photographs, that there was a continuing relationship and what that means in the defense's estimation, how we view -- how we can argue to the jury what that means in terms of her state of mind.\n6 THE COURT: All right. That the point is already in establishes relevance. I don't think it's 403 prejudice to have duplicative evidence of the nature of the relationship. I don't hear an argument for prejudice otherwise. So obviously mindful of the need to continue to protect the anonymity of the witness, I would allow it.\n7 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.\n8 And I've met with the witness and I've impressed upon her that she should only use the name Jane. And if she's referring to Jane's family members, say the mother or the brothers, she will say it that way, Jane's mother, Jane's brothers,",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00016509",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. POMERANTZ",
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "Jane"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "761",
      "DOJ-OGR-00016509"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}