DOJ-OGR-00016981.json 3.7 KB

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354
  1. {
  2. "document_metadata": {
  3. "page_number": "55",
  4. "document_number": "765",
  5. "date": "08/10/22",
  6. "document_type": "court transcript",
  7. "has_handwriting": false,
  8. "has_stamps": false
  9. },
  10. "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 55 of 95 2793\n\n1 THE COURT: And again, noting that that's why I gave\n2 the limiting instruction for Annie's testimony, that's why the\n3 limiting instruction did differ from the limiting instruction\n4 for Kate, because that is the Court's legal conclusion.\n5 MR. EVERDELL: Understood, your Honor.\n6 THE COURT: So let me just make sure my clerks --\n7 yeah. Right. My clerk has adopted the change on line 16,\n8 cutting the comma, \"when Annie was under the age of 18,\" comma.\n9 Next.\n10 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just to confirm, we are\n11 also eliminating, with the government's consent, No. 4, which\n12 refers to Kate, the overt act referring to Kate.\n13 THE COURT: Yes. So eliminating entirely the overt\n14 act on line 18 through 20. And then we'll have to change the\n15 fifth one to 4 --\n16 MR. EVERDELL: Correct, your Honor.\n17 THE COURT: -- on line 20. And that one looks like it\n18 can stay as is with the age.\n19 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.\n20 THE COURT: Okay.\n21 MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, I think that that should\n22 be -- on line 21, it should still be changed to 17, even\n23 though --\n24 THE COURT: Because of the --\n25 MR. ROHRBACH: Because of the legal count. It's the\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00016981",
  11. "text_blocks": [
  12. {
  13. "type": "printed",
  14. "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 55 of 95 2793",
  15. "position": "header"
  16. },
  17. {
  18. "type": "printed",
  19. "content": "1 THE COURT: And again, noting that that's why I gave\n2 the limiting instruction for Annie's testimony, that's why the\n3 limiting instruction did differ from the limiting instruction\n4 for Kate, because that is the Court's legal conclusion.\n5 MR. EVERDELL: Understood, your Honor.\n6 THE COURT: So let me just make sure my clerks --\n7 yeah. Right. My clerk has adopted the change on line 16,\n8 cutting the comma, \"when Annie was under the age of 18,\" comma.\n9 Next.\n10 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, just to confirm, we are\n11 also eliminating, with the government's consent, No. 4, which\n12 refers to Kate, the overt act referring to Kate.\n13 THE COURT: Yes. So eliminating entirely the overt\n14 act on line 18 through 20. And then we'll have to change the\n15 fifth one to 4 --\n16 MR. EVERDELL: Correct, your Honor.\n17 THE COURT: -- on line 20. And that one looks like it\n18 can stay as is with the age.\n19 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.\n20 THE COURT: Okay.\n21 MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, I think that that should\n22 be -- on line 21, it should still be changed to 17, even\n23 though --\n24 THE COURT: Because of the --\n25 MR. ROHRBACH: Because of the legal count. It's the",
  20. "position": "main content"
  21. },
  22. {
  23. "type": "printed",
  24. "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
  25. "position": "footer"
  26. },
  27. {
  28. "type": "printed",
  29. "content": "DOJ-OGR-00016981",
  30. "position": "footer"
  31. }
  32. ],
  33. "entities": {
  34. "people": [
  35. "Annie",
  36. "Kate",
  37. "MR. EVERDELL",
  38. "MR. ROHRBACH"
  39. ],
  40. "organizations": [
  41. "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
  42. ],
  43. "locations": [],
  44. "dates": [
  45. "08/10/22"
  46. ],
  47. "reference_numbers": [
  48. "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
  49. "765",
  50. "DOJ-OGR-00016981"
  51. ]
  52. },
  53. "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
  54. }