mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00016772.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "43",
    "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 43 of 197\nLCHVMAX2\n2584\n1 precluded.\n2 THE COURT: I've relitigated so many issues in this\n3 case, so I suppose this is just going out with the same\n4 pattern. But I said in my ruling, in its brief, the defense\n5 seeks to affirmatively -- and I'll quote from the brief --\n6 \"call FBI case agents as witnesses\" to ask who they talked to,\n7 what documents they subpoenaed, and when.\n8 But as the Second Circuit explained in Saldarriaga,\n9 the government's use or nonuse of certain investigative\n10 techniques does not tend to show the defendant's innocence of\n11 the charges. That's transcript at page 20. And I also said I\n12 would permit the defense to cross-examine law enforcement\n13 officers about the investigative steps that were taken if the\n14 government puts the thoroughness of the investigation into\n15 issue, as this too would be permissible impeachment on cross,\n16 and they did not.\n17 I suppose words have meaning in the eyes of the\n18 beholder, but what you're suggesting is directly contrary to my\n19 ruling.\n20 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I did see that. I'm not\n21 trying to be contrary. I just went back to the premise of your\n22 ruling when I was looking at the transcript cites and the cases\n23 that you cited as premise for your ruling. And because this\n24 issue became a live issue when we had Jane's testimony, I\n25 thought it appropriate to see if we could revisit this to see\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00016772",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 43 of 197",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LCHVMAX2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2584",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 precluded.\n2 THE COURT: I've relitigated so many issues in this\n3 case, so I suppose this is just going out with the same\n4 pattern. But I said in my ruling, in its brief, the defense\n5 seeks to affirmatively -- and I'll quote from the brief --\n6 \"call FBI case agents as witnesses\" to ask who they talked to,\n7 what documents they subpoenaed, and when.\n8 But as the Second Circuit explained in Saldarriaga,\n9 the government's use or nonuse of certain investigative\n10 techniques does not tend to show the defendant's innocence of\n11 the charges. That's transcript at page 20. And I also said I\n12 would permit the defense to cross-examine law enforcement\n13 officers about the investigative steps that were taken if the\n14 government puts the thoroughness of the investigation into\n15 issue, as this too would be permissible impeachment on cross,\n16 and they did not.\n17 I suppose words have meaning in the eyes of the\n18 beholder, but what you're suggesting is directly contrary to my\n19 ruling.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I did see that. I'm not\n21 trying to be contrary. I just went back to the premise of your\n22 ruling when I was looking at the transcript cites and the cases\n23 that you cited as premise for your ruling. And because this\n24 issue became a live issue when we had Jane's testimony, I\n25 thought it appropriate to see if we could revisit this to see",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00016772",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "Second Circuit",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00016772"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}