mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021566.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "136",
    "document_number": "78",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page136 of 217\nSA-390\n\nM6SQmax1\n21\n1    persuasive -- along with the other sources and opinions we've\n2    cited, it's persuasive authority for the fact this is a jury\n3    decision, not a Court determination.\n4        THE COURT:  Are you leaving that argument?\n5        MR. EVERDELL:  Yes, your Honor.\n6        THE COURT:  We'll do a little back-and-forth so I have\n7    everybody's arguments in mind.  Thank you.\n8    Go ahead, Ms. Moe.\n9        MS. MOE:  Thank you, your Honor.\n10       The government is confident the 2004 Manual applies in\n11   this case.  I believe we did engage with the ex post facto\n12   issue thoroughly in our brief.  The question is whether the\n13   factual record at trial establishes that the offense continued\n14   throughout the duration of 2004, which it emphatically did.\n15       The testimony of a crime victim who testified at this trial\n16   establishes that the offense conduct went past November 1,\n17   2004.\n18       THE COURT:  So I think the framing of the question\n19   here is very important and its technical -- this whole\n20   discussion is very technical.  It seems to me the question is\n21   can the government point to a preponderance of the evidence\n22   that conspiratorial conduct took place in this very small time\n23   window, basically November and December 2004.  That is what's\n24   in issue, and the question is what the trial record establishes\n25   with respect to that two-month window.\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.   (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00021566",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page136 of 217",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SA-390",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1\n21\n1    persuasive -- along with the other sources and opinions we've\n2    cited, it's persuasive authority for the fact this is a jury\n3    decision, not a Court determination.\n4        THE COURT:  Are you leaving that argument?\n5        MR. EVERDELL:  Yes, your Honor.\n6        THE COURT:  We'll do a little back-and-forth so I have\n7    everybody's arguments in mind.  Thank you.\n8    Go ahead, Ms. Moe.\n9        MS. MOE:  Thank you, your Honor.\n10       The government is confident the 2004 Manual applies in\n11   this case.  I believe we did engage with the ex post facto\n12   issue thoroughly in our brief.  The question is whether the\n13   factual record at trial establishes that the offense continued\n14   throughout the duration of 2004, which it emphatically did.\n15       The testimony of a crime victim who testified at this trial\n16   establishes that the offense conduct went past November 1,\n17   2004.\n18       THE COURT:  So I think the framing of the question\n19   here is very important and its technical -- this whole\n20   discussion is very technical.  It seems to me the question is\n21   can the government point to a preponderance of the evidence\n22   that conspiratorial conduct took place in this very small time\n23   window, basically November and December 2004.  That is what's\n24   in issue, and the question is what the trial record establishes\n25   with respect to that two-month window.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.   (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021566",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023",
      "November 1, 2004",
      "November 2004",
      "December 2004"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 78",
      "3536039",
      "SA-390",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021566"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}