mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00017290.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "12",
    "document_number": "769",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 769 Filed 08/10/22 Page 12 of 19 3103 LCLVMAXT\n1 THE COURT: Mr. Everdell.\n2 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think --\n3 THE COURT: Clearly the substantive answer is yes.\n4 MR. EVERDELL: Well, I think, as we've discussed in the briefing and in the limiting instruction, the answer is a little more complicated than --\n5\n6\n7 THE COURT: Well, your view is more complicated. You took a different view. I have ruled differently. And so I think based -- I think it's clear based on my rulings the answer to the question is yes.\n8\n9\n10\n11 MR. EVERDELL: I think what we should do is give the jury the same limiting instruction as to her testimony that you gave before her testimony; because I think that actually gives the jury exactly what they can consider and not consider her testimony for.\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, the limiting instruction was targeted at Counts Two and Four, the substantive counts, to make clear that Annie's testimony was not the basis of a substantive count. I don't think it's necessary for Counts One and Three. I think the answer is clearly yes, made all the more so by the fact that Annie's testimony or a part of it is referenced as an overt act in the indictment in the instructions. I think the simplest answer and the correct answer is yes.\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25 MR. EVERDELL: I don't think it's correct at all that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00017290",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 769 Filed 08/10/22 Page 12 of 19 3103 LCLVMAXT",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 THE COURT: Mr. Everdell.\n2 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think --\n3 THE COURT: Clearly the substantive answer is yes.\n4 MR. EVERDELL: Well, I think, as we've discussed in the briefing and in the limiting instruction, the answer is a little more complicated than --\n5\n6\n7 THE COURT: Well, your view is more complicated. You took a different view. I have ruled differently. And so I think based -- I think it's clear based on my rulings the answer to the question is yes.\n8\n9\n10\n11 MR. EVERDELL: I think what we should do is give the jury the same limiting instruction as to her testimony that you gave before her testimony; because I think that actually gives the jury exactly what they can consider and not consider her testimony for.\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, the limiting instruction was targeted at Counts Two and Four, the substantive counts, to make clear that Annie's testimony was not the basis of a substantive count. I don't think it's necessary for Counts One and Three. I think the answer is clearly yes, made all the more so by the fact that Annie's testimony or a part of it is referenced as an overt act in the indictment in the instructions. I think the simplest answer and the correct answer is yes.\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25 MR. EVERDELL: I don't think it's correct at all that",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00017290",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Everdell",
      "Annie",
      "MS. COMEY"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "769",
      "DOJ-OGR-00017290"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a discussion between the court and lawyers regarding a limiting instruction for a witness's testimony. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}