mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00017291.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "13",
    "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 13 of 19 LCLVMAXT\n1 it's only to Two and Four. Because the instruction was that\n2 you can't consider her testimony as a legal sexual activity as\n3 charged in the indictment. And that applies to One and Three as\n4 well.\n5 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, that was not the limiting instruction. The limiting instruction was that what she describes is not illegal sexual activity as defined in the indictment.\n7\n8\n9 THE COURT: That's precisely the precision with which\n10 I have made this point. And the defense has continued to revert to the idea that the testimony can't be considered for that. That was the basis -- that was the basis for exclusion.\n12 But her testimony is relevant, may be considered by the jury\n13 with respect to the conspiracy counts.\n14\n15 The answer is yes. And they are asking not for what\n16 it can't be used for, which is what the limiting instruction gave them, they are asking whether it may permissibly be considered for these counts. And the answer to that is yes under my rulings.\n20 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I respectfully think that what they are asking for is how can we consider her testimony.\n22 THE COURT: May I have the note back?\n23 MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.\n24 It's a yes-or-no question.\n25 THE COURT: Can we consider Annie's testimony as\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00017291",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 769 Filed 08/10/22 Page 13 of 19 LCLVMAXT",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 it's only to Two and Four. Because the instruction was that\n2 you can't consider her testimony as a legal sexual activity as\n3 charged in the indictment. And that applies to One and Three as\n4 well.\n5 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, that was not the limiting instruction. The limiting instruction was that what she describes is not illegal sexual activity as defined in the indictment.\n7\n8\n9 THE COURT: That's precisely the precision with which\n10 I have made this point. And the defense has continued to revert to the idea that the testimony can't be considered for that. That was the basis -- that was the basis for exclusion.\n12 But her testimony is relevant, may be considered by the jury\n13 with respect to the conspiracy counts.\n14\n15 The answer is yes. And they are asking not for what\n16 it can't be used for, which is what the limiting instruction gave them, they are asking whether it may permissibly be considered for these counts. And the answer to that is yes under my rulings.\n20 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I respectfully think that what they are asking for is how can we consider her testimony.\n22 THE COURT: May I have the note back?\n23 MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.\n24 It's a yes-or-no question.\n25 THE COURT: Can we consider Annie's testimony as",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00017291",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. COMEY",
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "Annie"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "769",
      "DOJ-OGR-00017291"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}