mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014204.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "98",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 98 of 197 2639\nLCHCmax3 Dubin - direct\n1 what I allowed in overruling your motion to preclude is timeframed. So you want the timeframe narrowed to the window\n2 in which the witness testified that there was sexualized massages with --\n3\n4 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, and limited to particular individuals who are at issue in this case. It's not before the\n5 jury whether Maxwell and Epstein committed misconduct with other people, the question is whether she has relevant\n6 knowledge about misconduct with the people who are at issue in this case. The absence of misconduct with other people who are\n7 not at issue in this case is not relevant.\n8\n9 THE COURT: I think you should narrow the timeframe in which the witness testifies.\n10\n11 MR. PAGLIUCA: I can do that, your Honor.\n12 Just so the record is clear, I don't believe this was litigated at all pretrial. This witness was not questioned\n13 about Ms. Maxwell or not being there, which were litigated pretrial. This really is foundational to the next question,\n14 which is going to be after she stopped dating him, which is then into the relevant timeframe, did she see any of this\n15 activity, any of which she considered to be inappropriate activity. So that's actually the next question. So I'm moving\n16 out of this into that. But it seems to me to be logically relevant, your Honor, frankly because if she had seen any of\n17 that activity, I doubt she would have been dating him or would\n18\n19 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014204",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 98 of 197 2639",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LCHCmax3 Dubin - direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 what I allowed in overruling your motion to preclude is timeframed. So you want the timeframe narrowed to the window",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 in which the witness testified that there was sexualized massages with --",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, and limited to particular individuals who are at issue in this case. It's not before the",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5 jury whether Maxwell and Epstein committed misconduct with other people, the question is whether she has relevant",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6 knowledge about misconduct with the people who are at issue in this case. The absence of misconduct with other people who are",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7 not at issue in this case is not relevant.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9 THE COURT: I think you should narrow the timeframe in which the witness testifies.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11 MR. PAGLIUCA: I can do that, your Honor.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12 Just so the record is clear, I don't believe this was litigated at all pretrial. This witness was not questioned",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "13 about Ms. Maxwell or not being there, which were litigated pretrial. This really is foundational to the next question,",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "14 which is going to be after she stopped dating him, which is then into the relevant timeframe, did she see any of this",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15 activity, any of which she considered to be inappropriate activity. So that's actually the next question. So I'm moving",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "16 out of this into that. But it seems to me to be logically relevant, your Honor, frankly because if she had seen any of",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17 that activity, I doubt she would have been dating him or would",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "19 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014204",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Ms. MOE",
      "MR. PAGLIUCA"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014204"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}