mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00016959.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "33",
    "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 33 of 95\nLCI1MAX1\nonly one of the dominant purposes.\nTHE COURT: Let me just note my remarkably crack law clerks have found the following case: United States v. An Soon Kim.\nMR. EVERDELL: Yes.\nTHE COURT: You're aware of it.\nMR. EVERDELL: Yes. But that case --\nTHE COURT: Just let me give the cite. 471 F. App'x 82 (2d Cir. 2012). Summary order, obviously, but it says a couple of things. One -- ooh, I lost what my crack law clerk sent there. It endorses the Sand language over \"dominant.\" \"These instructions are legally sound. Neither 'dominant' nor 'predominant' appear in the statutory language. Although we have previously approved a jury charge that included the phrase \"one of the dominant purposes,\" (see, e.g., Miller) we've never required such language to appear in a jury charge on 2421. Indeed, Judge Sand recommends excluding the word 'dominant' from the charge so as to avoid confusion.\" And then at the end of the opinion, \"The charge given by the district court, which closely tracks the charge outlined by Judge Sand, accurately and thoroughly conveyed the second element of the crime. Accordingly, we find no error, much less plain error, in the jury charge.\"\nMR. EVERDELL: Yes. So the way I read that case, your Honor, is that there are two variants on how this charge has\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 33 of 95",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LCI1MAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "only one of the dominant purposes.\nTHE COURT: Let me just note my remarkably crack law clerks have found the following case: United States v. An Soon Kim.\nMR. EVERDELL: Yes.\nTHE COURT: You're aware of it.\nMR. EVERDELL: Yes. But that case --\nTHE COURT: Just let me give the cite. 471 F. App'x 82 (2d Cir. 2012). Summary order, obviously, but it says a couple of things. One -- ooh, I lost what my crack law clerk sent there. It endorses the Sand language over \"dominant.\" \"These instructions are legally sound. Neither 'dominant' nor 'predominant' appear in the statutory language. Although we have previously approved a jury charge that included the phrase \"one of the dominant purposes,\" (see, e.g., Miller) we've never required such language to appear in a jury charge on 2421. Indeed, Judge Sand recommends excluding the word 'dominant' from the charge so as to avoid confusion.\" And then at the end of the opinion, \"The charge given by the district court, which closely tracks the charge outlined by Judge Sand, accurately and thoroughly conveyed the second element of the crime. Accordingly, we find no error, much less plain error, in the jury charge.\"\nMR. EVERDELL: Yes. So the way I read that case, your Honor, is that there are two variants on how this charge has",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "An Soon Kim",
      "Miller",
      "Judge Sand",
      "MR. EVERDELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "THE COURT"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "2012"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "765",
      "471 F. App'x 82",
      "2421"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}