mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011627.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "739",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 739 Filed 08/10/22 Page 6 of 43 6 LBNAMAXTps\n\nin my life, I think you can come to point of agreement, can't you?\n\nMS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor. Indeed we told the defense that we by no means mean to bind the defense against raising an issue that comes up during direct. We just wanted to know ex ante as things stand, do they have a good-faith basis to believe that there's a grounds for cross-examination along those topics.\n\nTHE COURT: It sounds like, I bet, this conversation could happen without me and everybody else in this room. But I'm glad to be here for you.\n\nMS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.\n\nMR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor. Thank you.\n\nTHE COURT: What's next?\n\nMS. COMEY: Your Honor, the other issue was, we've become aware recently of a number of subpoenas that the defense has served on witnesses. There's one in particular that we wanted raise at this juncture, which is, the defense has served the attorney who currently represents Minor Victim 4 with a subpoena, seeking his testimony at this trial. We've attempted to confer on this issue because the government has no idea what admissible testimony that attorney could possibly offer at this trial that would not be covered by attorney-client privilege. We would move to preclude it, but we cannot fathom what the testimony would be. And so we're raising it with your Honor\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 739 Filed 08/10/22 Page 6 of 43 6 LBNAMAXTps",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "in my life, I think you can come to point of agreement, can't you?\n\nMS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor. Indeed we told the defense that we by no means mean to bind the defense against raising an issue that comes up during direct. We just wanted to know ex ante as things stand, do they have a good-faith basis to believe that there's a grounds for cross-examination along those topics.\n\nTHE COURT: It sounds like, I bet, this conversation could happen without me and everybody else in this room. But I'm glad to be here for you.\n\nMS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.\n\nMR. PAGLIUCA: Thank you, your Honor. Thank you.\n\nTHE COURT: What's next?\n\nMS. COMEY: Your Honor, the other issue was, we've become aware recently of a number of subpoenas that the defense has served on witnesses. There's one in particular that we wanted raise at this juncture, which is, the defense has served the attorney who currently represents Minor Victim 4 with a subpoena, seeking his testimony at this trial. We've attempted to confer on this issue because the government has no idea what admissible testimony that attorney could possibly offer at this trial that would not be covered by attorney-client privilege. We would move to preclude it, but we cannot fathom what the testimony would be. And so we're raising it with your Honor",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. COMEY",
      "MR. PAGLIUCA",
      "Minor Victim 4"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "739",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011627"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}