mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009439.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20",
    "document_number": "1:20-cr-00330",
    "date": "02/24/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 20 of 117\nA-5835\n\nC2grdau4 378\n1 Finally, in the past I asked the parties to brief what\n2 they believed might occur depending upon various rulings by the\n3 Court. It seems to me that one scenario was left out. You are\n4 not to conclude from this request that this is the Court's\n5 thinking, but I want to receive briefing on the following\n6 question.\n7 If this Court were to grant the defendants' motion for\n8 a new trial and also conclude that the defendant Parse had\n9 waived, what would be the shake-out of that in terms of Parse's\n10 ability to take that issue to the Court of Appeals at the same\n11 time that the government would be taking the underlying issue\n12 on motion for a new trial to the Court of Appeals, as is the\n13 government's right under a specific statute? I have\n14 preliminarily looked at the matter, but I'd appreciate your\n15 wisdom on the question.\n16 Are there any other issues that counsel want to raise?\n17 Mr. Shechtman?\n18 MR. SHECHTMAN: Can I try to sharpen that last\n19 question?\n20 THE COURT: Go ahead, certainly.\n21 MR. SHECHTMAN: I take it the notion would be could\n22 Mr. Parse take that appeal interlocutorily before sentencing?\n23 THE COURT: Bingo.\n24 MR. SHECHTMAN: The after one is easy. So it's really\n25 an interlocutory.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009439",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 20 of 117",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "A-5835",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2grdau4 378\n1 Finally, in the past I asked the parties to brief what\n2 they believed might occur depending upon various rulings by the\n3 Court. It seems to me that one scenario was left out. You are\n4 not to conclude from this request that this is the Court's\n5 thinking, but I want to receive briefing on the following\n6 question.\n7 If this Court were to grant the defendants' motion for\n8 a new trial and also conclude that the defendant Parse had\n9 waived, what would be the shake-out of that in terms of Parse's\n10 ability to take that issue to the Court of Appeals at the same\n11 time that the government would be taking the underlying issue\n12 on motion for a new trial to the Court of Appeals, as is the\n13 government's right under a specific statute? I have\n14 preliminarily looked at the matter, but I'd appreciate your\n15 wisdom on the question.\n16 Are there any other issues that counsel want to raise?\n17 Mr. Shechtman?\n18 MR. SHECHTMAN: Can I try to sharpen that last\n19 question?\n20 THE COURT: Go ahead, certainly.\n21 MR. SHECHTMAN: I take it the notion would be could\n22 Mr. Parse take that appeal interlocutorily before sentencing?\n23 THE COURT: Bingo.\n24 MR. SHECHTMAN: The after one is easy. So it's really\n25 an interlocutory.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009439",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Shechtman",
      "Mr. Parse"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "Court of Appeals"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/24/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330",
      "A-5835",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009439"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}