mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00016987.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "61",
    "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 61 of 95 2799 LCIAMAX2ps\n\nThe theory they are proceeding on is that she is an active participant. They can't have it both ways. The proof at trial that they have elicited is that she was actively involved. This seems to be here as some sort of backup option. And that's not permissible, your Honor.\n\nAnd I would add that, in a case like this in particular, there is a real concern that the jurors are going to look at this evidence and, given the subject matter of the case, they're going to think, well, she must have known and that's enough for me because this is conduct that really I can't countenance because it involves children. And then the conscious avoidance instruction will give them license to convict the defendant on an improper basis simply because of the nature of the subject matter.\n\nSo that's an overlay, your Honor. But at the basis, it's that the proof and the theory of the charging in this case and the proof that's gone with it is that she's an active participant o, so we do not think that there is an appropriate factual predicate for this charge.\n\nMR. ROHRBACH: A few responses to that, your Honor. First of all, the witnesses testified that she was an active participant. The jury may reject their testimony that she actively participated and can still convict based on her facilitation of the various offenses, including through a conscious avoidance theory.\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00016987",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 61 of 95 2799 LCIAMAX2ps",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The theory they are proceeding on is that she is an active participant. They can't have it both ways. The proof at trial that they have elicited is that she was actively involved. This seems to be here as some sort of backup option. And that's not permissible, your Honor.\n\nAnd I would add that, in a case like this in particular, there is a real concern that the jurors are going to look at this evidence and, given the subject matter of the case, they're going to think, well, she must have known and that's enough for me because this is conduct that really I can't countenance because it involves children. And then the conscious avoidance instruction will give them license to convict the defendant on an improper basis simply because of the nature of the subject matter.\n\nSo that's an overlay, your Honor. But at the basis, it's that the proof and the theory of the charging in this case and the proof that's gone with it is that she's an active participant o, so we do not think that there is an appropriate factual predicate for this charge.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "MR. ROHRBACH: A few responses to that, your Honor. First of all, the witnesses testified that she was an active participant. The jury may reject their testimony that she actively participated and can still convict based on her facilitation of the various offenses, including through a conscious avoidance theory.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00016987",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "765",
      "DOJ-OGR-00016987"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}