mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011533.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "document_number": "737",
    "date": "07/22/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 14 of 101 M6SQmax1 14 that for now. Paragraph 72, defendant objects to the assertion that Epstein briefly penetrated Carolyn's vagina with his penis because her trial testimony the defense claims is contradicted by a 2009 deposition testimony. I overrule this objection. Again, I credit Carolyn's testimony. Carolyn plainly testified to this at trial. Paragraph 74, the defendant again objects to the assertion as to the age and timing. Again, we'll pick up on that issue when we discuss the appropriate guideline manual. Paragraphs 75 and 76 the defendant objects to the inclusion of these paragraphs in the presentence report because the perjury counts have not been presented to a jury, and so she contends have no bearing on the sentence in this case. I do overrule this objection. A sentencing court's discretion is largely unlimited as to the kind of information it may consider. It's free to consider evidence of uncharged crimes, dropped counts of an indictment, criminal activity resulting in acquittal in determining sentence. United States v. Bennett, 839 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2016). I may consider the information as long as the information is reliable and accurate. For the following reasons, I do conclude the information underlying the severed perjury charges is reliable. The defendant testified under oath in 2016 that she was not aware of Epstein's scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages and other than SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011533",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 14 of 101 M6SQmax1 14",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "that for now. Paragraph 72, defendant objects to the assertion that Epstein briefly penetrated Carolyn's vagina with his penis because her trial testimony the defense claims is contradicted by a 2009 deposition testimony. I overrule this objection. Again, I credit Carolyn's testimony. Carolyn plainly testified to this at trial. Paragraph 74, the defendant again objects to the assertion as to the age and timing. Again, we'll pick up on that issue when we discuss the appropriate guideline manual. Paragraphs 75 and 76 the defendant objects to the inclusion of these paragraphs in the presentence report because the perjury counts have not been presented to a jury, and so she contends have no bearing on the sentence in this case. I do overrule this objection. A sentencing court's discretion is largely unlimited as to the kind of information it may consider. It's free to consider evidence of uncharged crimes, dropped counts of an indictment, criminal activity resulting in acquittal in determining sentence. United States v. Bennett, 839 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2016). I may consider the information as long as the information is reliable and accurate. For the following reasons, I do conclude the information underlying the severed perjury charges is reliable. The defendant testified under oath in 2016 that she was not aware of Epstein's scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages and other than",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011533",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Carolyn",
      "Bennett"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/22/22",
      "2009",
      "2016"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "737",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011533"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to a case involving Epstein and the defendant. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document includes a reference to a specific court case and a legal citation."
}