mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00016900.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "171",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 171 of 197 2712\n\n1 admission that he vacated East 69th in or about January '96,\n2 and then Judge Chin's decision making that finding of fact.\n3 There is one other document from that docket that we\n4 seek to admit, but under a separate rule of evidence,\n5 804(b)(1). There was actually a deposition transcript from\n6 Mr. Epstein in which he is asked -- and it was taken by the\n7 U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.\n8 And he was asked in that deposition, Is it correct that you\n9 moved from the premises -- meaning East 69th -- to 9 East 71st\n10 Street in or around the beginning of '96?\n11 And Mr. Epstein responded, You asked me that question\n12 three times. I believe it is around then, but I don't know\n13 exactly when.\n14 This deposition excerpt was appended to a pleading\n15 that was submitted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in support of\n16 their case at docket number 52. So I believe that one is\n17 admissible under 804(b)(1), the deposition transcript.\n18 THE COURT: Okay. One at a time, Mr. Rohrbach.\n19 MR. ROHRBACH: Yes, your Honor.\n20 I will go through each of the documents, but just as a\n21 substantive point, this is very much like the 44 Kinnerton\n22 Street issues we've been talking about.\n23 And substantively --\n24 THE COURT: Microphone.\n25 MR. ROHRBACH: This is very much like the 44 Kinnerton\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00016900",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 171 of 197 2712",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 admission that he vacated East 69th in or about January '96,\n2 and then Judge Chin's decision making that finding of fact.\n3 There is one other document from that docket that we\n4 seek to admit, but under a separate rule of evidence,\n5 804(b)(1). There was actually a deposition transcript from\n6 Mr. Epstein in which he is asked -- and it was taken by the\n7 U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.\n8 And he was asked in that deposition, Is it correct that you\n9 moved from the premises -- meaning East 69th -- to 9 East 71st\n10 Street in or around the beginning of '96?\n11 And Mr. Epstein responded, You asked me that question\n12 three times. I believe it is around then, but I don't know\n13 exactly when.\n14 This deposition excerpt was appended to a pleading\n15 that was submitted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in support of\n16 their case at docket number 52. So I believe that one is\n17 admissible under 804(b)(1), the deposition transcript.\n18 THE COURT: Okay. One at a time, Mr. Rohrbach.\n19 MR. ROHRBACH: Yes, your Honor.\n20 I will go through each of the documents, but just as a\n21 substantive point, this is very much like the 44 Kinnerton\n22 Street issues we've been talking about.\n23 And substantively --\n24 THE COURT: Microphone.\n25 MR. ROHRBACH: This is very much like the 44 Kinnerton",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00016900",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Chin",
      "Mr. Epstein",
      "Mr. Rohrbach"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Attorney's Office",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "East 69th",
      "9 East 71st Street",
      "Southern District of New York",
      "44 Kinnerton Street"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "January '96",
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "763",
      "52",
      "DOJ-OGR-00016900"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}