mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003091.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "157",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 157 of 239 Q. Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or devices used in sexual activities in Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house? A. No, not that I recall. Giuffre's lawyer asked the following question: Q. Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual activities? A. No. The defendant now argues that these questions are ambiguous because they contain \"numerous undefined terms,\" such as \"sex toy or device\" and \"sexual activities.\" (Def. Mot. 4 at 14). She asks, for instance, whether \"bath oil\" would count as a sex toy or device. (Id.). Yet this argument is simply another attempt to imbue ambiguity after the fact into commonly used words with common sense meanings. The mere fact that a term could apply equally to several different objects does not automatically mean that the question is impermissibly vague and can never form the basis of a perjury charge. See, e.g., H.L.A. Hart, Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals, 71 Harv. L. Rev. 593, 607 (1958) (\"A legal rule forbids you to take a vehicle into the public park. Plainly this forbids an automobile, but what about bicycles . . . ?\"). Instead, it is well-settled that \"[t]he jury should determine whether the question—as the declarant must have understood it, giving it a reasonable reading—was falsely answered.\" Lighte, 782 F.2d at 372. So 130 DOJ-OGR-00003091",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 157 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Q. Were you aware of the presence of sex toys or devices used in sexual activities in Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach house?",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. No, not that I recall.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Giuffre's lawyer asked the following question:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Q. Do you know whether Mr. Epstein possessed sex toys or devices used in sexual activities?",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. No.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant now argues that these questions are ambiguous because they contain \"numerous undefined terms,\" such as \"sex toy or device\" and \"sexual activities.\" (Def. Mot. 4 at 14). She asks, for instance, whether \"bath oil\" would count as a sex toy or device. (Id.). Yet this argument is simply another attempt to imbue ambiguity after the fact into commonly used words with common sense meanings. The mere fact that a term could apply equally to several different objects does not automatically mean that the question is impermissibly vague and can never form the basis of a perjury charge. See, e.g., H.L.A. Hart, Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals, 71 Harv. L. Rev. 593, 607 (1958) (\"A legal rule forbids you to take a vehicle into the public park. Plainly this forbids an automobile, but what about bicycles . . . ?\"). Instead, it is well-settled that \"[t]he jury should determine whether the question—as the declarant must have understood it, giving it a reasonable reading—was falsely answered.\" Lighte, 782 F.2d at 372. So",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "130",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003091",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Giuffre",
      "H.L.A. Hart"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Palm Beach",
      "Harvard Law Review"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1958"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003091"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal filing related to the case of United States v. Epstein. The text includes a Q&A session and a legal argument about the ambiguity of certain questions. The document is likely a photocopy or scan of an original document, as evidenced by the presence of a page number and a document number."
}