mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00016935.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "document_number": "765",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 9 of 95 2747 LCI1MAX1\n\n1 sexual activity as charged in the indictment, which is a\n2 reference to the violation of New York law, because that is the\n3 theory we're proceeding under.\n4\n5 With respect to Carolyn, there was no limiting\n6 instruction, but it's evident we were talking about Florida\n7 conduct. There is no violation of New York law there. So the\n8 only evidence we have that goes to -- that actually establishes\n9 a violation of New York law, which is the object of this\n10 conspiracy, and the object of the transportation conspiracy, is\n11 what Jane said.\n12 Now the Court did instruct the jury that they can\n13 consider the testimony of Kate and of Annie for whatever\n14 relevant purpose they see fit, and I suppose that could be\n15 evidence of a conspiracy, correct, but for them to actually\n16 convict on this, they have to believe that somebody committed a\n17 violation of New York law, and that relates solely to Jane, and\n18 so we don't think -- there are no multiple alleged victims of\n19 this conspiracy other than Jane that's been established by the\n20 evidence at trial. So we believe while they may be able to\n21 consider the testimony of Annie and Kate as evidence of some\n22 sort of relevant evidence that speaks to this conspiracy, that\n23 is not -- they are not victims of this conspiracy, there was no\n24 violation of New York law that they testified to, and that is\n25 Jane alone. So this count relates solely to Jane, as does the\n26 substantive count, your Honor.\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00016935",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 9 of 95 2747 LCI1MAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 sexual activity as charged in the indictment, which is a\n2 reference to the violation of New York law, because that is the\n3 theory we're proceeding under.\n4\n5 With respect to Carolyn, there was no limiting\n6 instruction, but it's evident we were talking about Florida\n7 conduct. There is no violation of New York law there. So the\n8 only evidence we have that goes to -- that actually establishes\n9 a violation of New York law, which is the object of this\n10 conspiracy, and the object of the transportation conspiracy, is\n11 what Jane said.\n12 Now the Court did instruct the jury that they can\n13 consider the testimony of Kate and of Annie for whatever\n14 relevant purpose they see fit, and I suppose that could be\n15 evidence of a conspiracy, correct, but for them to actually\n16 convict on this, they have to believe that somebody committed a\n17 violation of New York law, and that relates solely to Jane, and\n18 so we don't think -- there are no multiple alleged victims of\n19 this conspiracy other than Jane that's been established by the\n20 evidence at trial. So we believe while they may be able to\n21 consider the testimony of Annie and Kate as evidence of some\n22 sort of relevant evidence that speaks to this conspiracy, that\n23 is not -- they are not victims of this conspiracy, there was no\n24 violation of New York law that they testified to, and that is\n25 Jane alone. So this count relates solely to Jane, as does the\n26 substantive count, your Honor.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00016935",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Carolyn",
      "Jane",
      "Kate",
      "Annie"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "765",
      "DOJ-OGR-00016935"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript, with a formal tone and legal language. The content discusses a conspiracy case and the testimony of various individuals."
}