mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00016770.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "41",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 41 of 197 2582 LCHVMAX2\n1 circumstances.\n2 In that case, law enforcement had received a tip that\n3 the defendant was innocent because another individual shot the\n4 victim. The Second Circuit stated that cross-examination of\n5 the lead investigating officer on that tip was probative\n6 because the jury could conclude that law enforcement had\n7 prematurely concluded the defendant was the shooter and it\n8 failed to investigate diligently the possibility that it was\n9 the other individual. That was the Watson case.\n10 I think we want to make these points, your Honor,\n11 because I think the point to the jury is the government\n12 credited the witnesses, the accusers in this case, without\n13 following up on the information that they provided to see if it\n14 was wrong. Not following up on that information is probative\n15 of the defendant's guilt or innocence in his case; because had\n16 they followed up, we believe they would have heard that that\n17 was not true from these witnesses. And so that goes to the\n18 guilt or innocence of this defendant.\n19 I do intend to get into that on the stand and talk to\n20 them about, You spoke to Jane on X date. And on that date she\n21 told you about group sexualized massages involving this person\n22 and that person; isn't that right? Yes. Spoke to her on\n23 another date; she mentioned a few other names. Spoke to her on\n24 a third date; she mentioned names again, and she gave physical\n25 descriptions of these people. She said certain details about\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00016770",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 41 of 197 2582 LCHVMAX2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 circumstances.\n2 In that case, law enforcement had received a tip that\n3 the defendant was innocent because another individual shot the\n4 victim. The Second Circuit stated that cross-examination of\n5 the lead investigating officer on that tip was probative\n6 because the jury could conclude that law enforcement had\n7 prematurely concluded the defendant was the shooter and it\n8 failed to investigate diligently the possibility that it was\n9 the other individual. That was the Watson case.\n10 I think we want to make these points, your Honor,\n11 because I think the point to the jury is the government\n12 credited the witnesses, the accusers in this case, without\n13 following up on the information that they provided to see if it\n14 was wrong. Not following up on that information is probative\n15 of the defendant's guilt or innocence in his case; because had\n16 they followed up, we believe they would have heard that that\n17 was not true from these witnesses. And so that goes to the\n18 guilt or innocence of this defendant.\n19 I do intend to get into that on the stand and talk to\n20 them about, You spoke to Jane on X date. And on that date she\n21 told you about group sexualized massages involving this person\n22 and that person; isn't that right? Yes. Spoke to her on\n23 another date; she mentioned a few other names. Spoke to her on\n24 a third date; she mentioned names again, and she gave physical\n25 descriptions of these people. She said certain details about",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00016770",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Watson"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "X date"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00016770"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}