mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014720.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "775",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 775 Filed 08/10/22 Page 4 of 16 3150 LCSCMAXT\ncan be relevant to an intent to transport to New York to engage in sexual activity under the age of 17, I think. I think this is the same basic discussion that we've had. So, in addition to my reasoning yesterday, I think the proposal made by the defense is wrong.\nI continue to not know how to parse the jury's question exactly, other than to know that they are asking about Count Four, the defense's original suggestion to just point to the motivating factor I rejected language or to say no. To say no, I think, was the wrong course, because I don't understand the question well enough to be able to say no.\nPointing to just the motivating factor language I think was unhelpful because, really, the point is to remind them of the whole instruction, including that it's a violation of New York penal law that's charged and is the illegal sexual activity that they're considering.\nSo, for those reasons, I am in the same place.\nI did want to make a little bit of an additional record regarding my extending the deliberations by an hour, the instructions that I gave yesterday regarding that slightly extended schedule.\nI asked the jury to make themselves available to deliberate until at least 6:00 today, which is a one-hour extension of what's largely been our schedule. Although, it was until 6 o'clock, I think, on the first night of\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014720",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 775 Filed 08/10/22 Page 4 of 16 3150 LCSCMAXT",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "can be relevant to an intent to transport to New York to engage in sexual activity under the age of 17, I think. I think this is the same basic discussion that we've had. So, in addition to my reasoning yesterday, I think the proposal made by the defense is wrong.\nI continue to not know how to parse the jury's question exactly, other than to know that they are asking about Count Four, the defense's original suggestion to just point to the motivating factor I rejected language or to say no. To say no, I think, was the wrong course, because I don't understand the question well enough to be able to say no.\nPointing to just the motivating factor language I think was unhelpful because, really, the point is to remind them of the whole instruction, including that it's a violation of New York penal law that's charged and is the illegal sexual activity that they're considering.\nSo, for those reasons, I am in the same place.\nI did want to make a little bit of an additional record regarding my extending the deliberations by an hour, the instructions that I gave yesterday regarding that slightly extended schedule.\nI asked the jury to make themselves available to deliberate until at least 6:00 today, which is a one-hour extension of what's largely been our schedule. Although, it was until 6 o'clock, I think, on the first night of",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014720",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "775",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014720"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}