mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00014768.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "21",
    "document_number": "779",
    "date": "08/22/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 779 Filed 08/22/22 Page 21 of 101\nM6SQmax1\npersuasive -- along with the other sources and opinions we've cited, it's persuasive authority for the fact this is a jury decision, not a Court determination.\nTHE COURT: Are you leaving that argument?\nMR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: We'll do a little back-and-forth so I have everybody's arguments in mind. Thank you.\nGo ahead, Ms. Moe.\nMS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.\nThe government is confident the 2004 Manual applies in this case. I believe we did engage with the ex post facto issue thoroughly in our brief. The question is whether the factual record at trial establishes that the offense continued throughout the duration of 2004, which it emphatically did.\nThe testimony of a crime victim who testified at this trial establishes that the offense conduct went past November 1, 2004.\nTHE COURT: So I think the framing of the question here is very important and its technical -- this whole discussion is very technical. It seems to me the question is can the government point to a preponderance of the evidence that conspiratorial conduct took place in this very small time window, basically November and December 2004. That is what's in issue, and the question is what the trial record establishes with respect to that two-month window.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014768",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 779 Filed 08/22/22 Page 21 of 101",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "persuasive -- along with the other sources and opinions we've cited, it's persuasive authority for the fact this is a jury decision, not a Court determination.\nTHE COURT: Are you leaving that argument?\nMR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: We'll do a little back-and-forth so I have everybody's arguments in mind. Thank you.\nGo ahead, Ms. Moe.\nMS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor.\nThe government is confident the 2004 Manual applies in this case. I believe we did engage with the ex post facto issue thoroughly in our brief. The question is whether the factual record at trial establishes that the offense continued throughout the duration of 2004, which it emphatically did.\nThe testimony of a crime victim who testified at this trial establishes that the offense conduct went past November 1, 2004.\nTHE COURT: So I think the framing of the question here is very important and its technical -- this whole discussion is very technical. It seems to me the question is can the government point to a preponderance of the evidence that conspiratorial conduct took place in this very small time window, basically November and December 2004. That is what's in issue, and the question is what the trial record establishes with respect to that two-month window.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014768",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/22/22",
      "November 1, 2004",
      "November 2004",
      "December 2004"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "779",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014768"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}