mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00013874.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "761",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 15 of 246 2310 LCGVMAX1\nThursday or Friday. So if you give me a moment on that, I can check on the status of that.\nTHE COURT: Okay.\n(Counsel conferred)\nMR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'm told he has a court appearance on Monday, and he's only going to be able to get on a plane Monday night and would only be available to testify Tuesday. We can consider a stipulation to his testimony too, but I think these are all relevant and we should be able to admit these to the jury to argue the inference.\nTHE COURT: I think the point of cross is whether he has knowledge of whether -- of who lived at the residence prior.\nMr. Rohrbach, the complication of ownership aside, what is the government's view as to the relevance of facts regarding who lived in the home prior to 1997?\nMR. ROHRBACH: So who lived in the home might have marginal impeachment value, but the government's view is that it's only marginal. The proffer we have from the defense now is that, at most, the defendant lived in a home nearby before she moved to the 44 Kinnerton Street home. So to the extent that that's true -- and again, it's contradicted by the defendant's under-oath deposition testimony -- it would have only marginal impeachment value. It would mean that, if true, it would mean that Kate identified a nearby, but incorrect,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 15 of 246 2310 LCGVMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Thursday or Friday. So if you give me a moment on that, I can check on the status of that.\nTHE COURT: Okay.\n(Counsel conferred)\nMR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'm told he has a court appearance on Monday, and he's only going to be able to get on a plane Monday night and would only be available to testify Tuesday. We can consider a stipulation to his testimony too, but I think these are all relevant and we should be able to admit these to the jury to argue the inference.\nTHE COURT: I think the point of cross is whether he has knowledge of whether -- of who lived at the residence prior.\nMr. Rohrbach, the complication of ownership aside, what is the government's view as to the relevance of facts regarding who lived in the home prior to 1997?\nMR. ROHRBACH: So who lived in the home might have marginal impeachment value, but the government's view is that it's only marginal. The proffer we have from the defense now is that, at most, the defendant lived in a home nearby before she moved to the 44 Kinnerton Street home. So to the extent that that's true -- and again, it's contradicted by the defendant's under-oath deposition testimony -- it would have only marginal impeachment value. It would mean that, if true, it would mean that Kate identified a nearby, but incorrect,",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "MR. ROHRBACH",
      "Kate"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "44 Kinnerton Street"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "Monday",
      "Tuesday",
      "1997",
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "761"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}