mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00016958.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "32",
    "document_number": "765",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 32 of 95\nLCI1MAX1\n\n1 purpose\" language than language that happened to have been\n2 invented by Sand. As smart as Judge Sand was, that did not\n3 actually come from any circuit case law. So we propose going\n4 with what the courts have actually said on this issue rather\n5 than a proposal in Sand.\n6 THE COURT: I'm just going to read for a moment.\n7 I think I want to start by asking what's wrong with\n8 the current instruction, the one that you proposed that I\n9 adopted? That's the one that I've seen in --\n10 MR. EVERDELL: Well --\n11 THE COURT: -- in charges.\n12 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, there's nothing wrong with\n13 it per se. It is a charge that has been used in other cases,\n14 and we proposed it, so we obviously think it's acceptable. But\n15 I think the new proposed charge is a charge that is more\n16 accurate and also tracks the case law development on this point\n17 because the dominant purpose is actually something that was in\n18 a Second Circuit opinion and it's, you know -- Judge Rakoff has\n19 tried to craft an instruction in Miller to deal with the issue\n20 of one dominant purpose versus the dominant purpose, but the\n21 way that I think the case law has developed in the Second\n22 Circuit, it started with \"dominant purpose\" was the language\n23 used and then we had to deal with this issue of ambiguity\n24 there, and this is how Judge Rakoff came out, but was still\n25 keeping the \"dominant purpose\" language but clarifying it was\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 32 of 95",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LCI1MAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 purpose\" language than language that happened to have been\n2 invented by Sand. As smart as Judge Sand was, that did not\n3 actually come from any circuit case law. So we propose going\n4 with what the courts have actually said on this issue rather\n5 than a proposal in Sand.\n6 THE COURT: I'm just going to read for a moment.\n7 I think I want to start by asking what's wrong with\n8 the current instruction, the one that you proposed that I\n9 adopted? That's the one that I've seen in --\n10 MR. EVERDELL: Well --\n11 THE COURT: -- in charges.\n12 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, there's nothing wrong with\n13 it per se. It is a charge that has been used in other cases,\n14 and we proposed it, so we obviously think it's acceptable. But\n15 I think the new proposed charge is a charge that is more\n16 accurate and also tracks the case law development on this point\n17 because the dominant purpose is actually something that was in\n18 a Second Circuit opinion and it's, you know -- Judge Rakoff has\n19 tried to craft an instruction in Miller to deal with the issue\n20 of one dominant purpose versus the dominant purpose, but the\n21 way that I think the case law has developed in the Second\n22 Circuit, it started with \"dominant purpose\" was the language\n23 used and then we had to deal with this issue of ambiguity\n24 there, and this is how Judge Rakoff came out, but was still\n25 keeping the \"dominant purpose\" language but clarifying it was",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Sand",
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "Judge Rakoff"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 765"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}