mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020861.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "35",
    "document_number": "58",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page35 of 221\nA-235\n3152\nLCSCMAXT\n1    request of the letter, but if I could make a brief record on\n2    that, it will not take very long.\n3    THE COURT: Okay. And so there is the record that you\n4    made yesterday at the time the question came. There is the\n5    record that you put in the letter this morning that came in\n6    late -- early this morning that I reviewed this morning that we\n7    just discussed. So, to the extent you're seeking a third bite\n8    at the apple, go ahead.\n9    MR. EVERDELL: I'm simply looking to fill out the\n10   record. I understand it's been rejected by the Court.\n11   I think from the defense point of view, I think two\n12   things are very clear from this note. One is that the jury is\n13   considering whether or not they can convict Ms. Maxwell on the\n14   substantive offense in Count Four based solely on events that\n15   took place in New Mexico and traveled to and from New Mexico.\n16   THE COURT: There are a number of assumptions in that\n17   that don't necessarily derive from the meaning of that letter,\n18   but I understand that is your position.\n19   MR. EVERDELL: Understood, your Honor.\n20   And I think the second point is that they are looking\n21   at the instructions that they have been given thus far because\n22   they reference the second element of Count Four. So they're\n23   looking at that instruction and they are unclear, they are\n24   confused by those instructions. They are not sure whether or\n25   not -- those instructions don't inform them that, in fact,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page35 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-235",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3152\nLCSCMAXT\n1    request of the letter, but if I could make a brief record on\n2    that, it will not take very long.\n3    THE COURT: Okay. And so there is the record that you\n4    made yesterday at the time the question came. There is the\n5    record that you put in the letter this morning that came in\n6    late -- early this morning that I reviewed this morning that we\n7    just discussed. So, to the extent you're seeking a third bite\n8    at the apple, go ahead.\n9    MR. EVERDELL: I'm simply looking to fill out the\n10   record. I understand it's been rejected by the Court.\n11   I think from the defense point of view, I think two\n12   things are very clear from this note. One is that the jury is\n13   considering whether or not they can convict Ms. Maxwell on the\n14   substantive offense in Count Four based solely on events that\n15   took place in New Mexico and traveled to and from New Mexico.\n16   THE COURT: There are a number of assumptions in that\n17   that don't necessarily derive from the meaning of that letter,\n18   but I understand that is your position.\n19   MR. EVERDELL: Understood, your Honor.\n20   And I think the second point is that they are looking\n21   at the instructions that they have been given thus far because\n22   they reference the second element of Count Four. So they're\n23   looking at that instruction and they are unclear, they are\n24   confused by those instructions. They are not sure whether or\n25   not -- those instructions don't inform them that, in fact,",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New Mexico"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "3475901",
      "Page35 of 221",
      "A-235",
      "Count Four"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}