mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020862.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "36",
    "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, Page36 of 221\nA-236\n3153\nLCSCMAXT\n1    conduct that occurs solely in New Mexico, travels to and from\n2    New Mexico, solely in New Mexico cannot form the basis for a\n3    violation of New York law --\n4    THE COURT: Again, using your language, cannot form a\n5    basis, would suggest it is irrelevant. I'll say that is wrong\n6    as a legal matter, number 1. Number 2, you didn't seek to\n7    exclude that testimony, nor did you seek a limiting instruction\n8    with respect to that testimony, and I think that was quite ripe\n9    for all of the reasons we've articulated.\n10   MR. EVERDELL: Yes. Although, I would point out we\n11   did, in the charging conference, request the inclusion of\n12   travel from Florida to New York to make clear that that was the\n13   required facts to be proven for those counts.\n14      In any event, I think this is a time that calls for a\n15   supplemental instruction. I understand the Court has\n16   rejected --\n17      THE COURT: I'm not going to give them an incorrect\n18   supplemental instruction.\n19      MR. EVERDELL: If the Court thinks the instruction\n20   that was proposed is incorrect, we can certainly work to draft\n21   a correct one. I think the jury is saying that they my\n22   convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on conduct that solely\n23   relates to New Mexico. I am not saying it is irrelevant. What\n24   I am saying is if all they had --which is what I think the note\n25   is saying --is travel to and from New Mexico and alleged sexual\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page36 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-236",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3153\nLCSCMAXT\n1    conduct that occurs solely in New Mexico, travels to and from\n2    New Mexico, solely in New Mexico cannot form the basis for a\n3    violation of New York law --\n4    THE COURT: Again, using your language, cannot form a\n5    basis, would suggest it is irrelevant. I'll say that is wrong\n6    as a legal matter, number 1. Number 2, you didn't seek to\n7    exclude that testimony, nor did you seek a limiting instruction\n8    with respect to that testimony, and I think that was quite ripe\n9    for all of the reasons we've articulated.\n10   MR. EVERDELL: Yes. Although, I would point out we\n11   did, in the charging conference, request the inclusion of\n12   travel from Florida to New York to make clear that that was the\n13   required facts to be proven for those counts.\n14      In any event, I think this is a time that calls for a\n15   supplemental instruction. I understand the Court has\n16   rejected --\n17      THE COURT: I'm not going to give them an incorrect\n18   supplemental instruction.\n19      MR. EVERDELL: If the Court thinks the instruction\n20   that was proposed is incorrect, we can certainly work to draft\n21   a correct one. I think the jury is saying that they my\n22   convict Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on conduct that solely\n23   relates to New Mexico. I am not saying it is irrelevant. What\n24   I am saying is if all they had --which is what I think the note\n25   is saying --is travel to and from New Mexico and alleged sexual",
      "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",
      "New York",
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "3475901",
      "Page36 of 221",
      "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."
}