mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00018803.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "205",
    "document_number": "753",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 205 of 264 1646 LC7VMAX7 Carolyn - cross 1 first couple of incidents, which I think would be, as you're suggesting, time frame inconsistent. 2 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think you admitted those already, 4 your Honor. 5 THE COURT: See? I'm consistent. 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: You are. Yes, you are. Yes, you are. 7 The Court admitted paragraph 21, I think, as the -- 21 8 and 27. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 MR. PAGLIUCA: And where we started getting -- 11 THE COURT: 21 and 27. 27 is called incident two. 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. 13 THE COURT: And then 33, I'm not saying an 14 inconsistency. I'll sustain there. 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: 39 -- 16 THE COURT: And to the extent it is, because it could 17 somehow be read as part of a time frame that's off, it's 18 consistent with her -- it falls within the time frame she 19 testified to; it's not specific as to which incident this is. 20 To the extent there's 401 relevance, it's cumulative of the 21 point that you've already gotten in, which is that this -- that 22 the first incident described in this complaint took place in 23 2002, and her testimony is that it took place in 2001. 24 Next. 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: But also to that point, your Honor,  SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00018803",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 205 of 264 1646 LC7VMAX7 Carolyn - cross",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 first couple of incidents, which I think would be, as you're suggesting, time frame inconsistent. 2 3 MR. PAGLIUCA: I think you admitted those already, 4 your Honor. 5 THE COURT: See? I'm consistent. 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: You are. Yes, you are. Yes, you are. 7 The Court admitted paragraph 21, I think, as the -- 21 8 and 27. 9 THE COURT: Okay. 10 MR. PAGLIUCA: And where we started getting -- 11 THE COURT: 21 and 27. 27 is called incident two. 12 MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. 13 THE COURT: And then 33, I'm not saying an 14 inconsistency. I'll sustain there. 15 MR. PAGLIUCA: 39 -- 16 THE COURT: And to the extent it is, because it could 17 somehow be read as part of a time frame that's off, it's 18 consistent with her -- it falls within the time frame she 19 testified to; it's not specific as to which incident this is. 20 To the extent there's 401 relevance, it's cumulative of the 21 point that you've already gotten in, which is that this -- that 22 the first incident described in this complaint took place in 23 2002, and her testimony is that it took place in 2001. 24 Next. 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: But also to that point, your Honor,",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00018803",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. PAGLIUCA"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "2001",
      "2002",
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "753",
      "DOJ-OGR-00018803"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a discussion between MR. PAGLIUCA and THE COURT about the consistency of certain incidents and testimony. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}