mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00016937.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "765",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 11 of 95 2749\nLCI1MAX1\n1 of the conspiracy is to violate New York law, then an\n2 invitation to an island that's not New York doesn't count.\n3 And also, an invitation to travel to New Mexico to do\n4 whatever it is they were planning on doing in New Mexico is\n5 also not a goal of violating New York law. I'm sorry, from\n6 Arizona. So there's no connection to New York law with respect\n7 to Annie's testimony either.\n8 And so whatever purpose they want to glean from those\n9 two witnesses' testimony, Kate and Annie, or even Carolyn, the\n10 object of this conspiracy, for this to be a crime, it can only\n11 be hung on the testimony, at least in the evidence in the\n12 record, the testimony of Jane. And --\n13 THE COURT: You're doing precisely what Mr. Rohrbach\n14 said, which is you're switching back and forth between the\n15 conspiracy and the substantive count. So Annie, for example,\n16 the evidence is the conduct occurred in New Mexico. That's why\n17 I gave the limiting instruction. But that could be considered\n18 with other evidence of the conspiracy with respect to New York,\n19 the violation of New York law. You don't have to have the\n20 violation of New York law to establish the elements of the\n21 conspiracy count.\n22 So the objection is overruled.\n23 Next.\n24 MR. EVERDELL: All right. Next is line 13, your\n25 Honor, same page.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00016937",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 11 of 95 2749",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LCI1MAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 of the conspiracy is to violate New York law, then an\n2 invitation to an island that's not New York doesn't count.\n3 And also, an invitation to travel to New Mexico to do\n4 whatever it is they were planning on doing in New Mexico is\n5 also not a goal of violating New York law. I'm sorry, from\n6 Arizona. So there's no connection to New York law with respect\n7 to Annie's testimony either.\n8 And so whatever purpose they want to glean from those\n9 two witnesses' testimony, Kate and Annie, or even Carolyn, the\n10 object of this conspiracy, for this to be a crime, it can only\n11 be hung on the testimony, at least in the evidence in the\n12 record, the testimony of Jane. And --\n13 THE COURT: You're doing precisely what Mr. Rohrbach\n14 said, which is you're switching back and forth between the\n15 conspiracy and the substantive count. So Annie, for example,\n16 the evidence is the conduct occurred in New Mexico. That's why\n17 I gave the limiting instruction. But that could be considered\n18 with other evidence of the conspiracy with respect to New York,\n19 the violation of New York law. You don't have to have the\n20 violation of New York law to establish the elements of the\n21 conspiracy count.\n22 So the objection is overruled.\n23 Next.\n24 MR. EVERDELL: All right. Next is line 13, your\n25 Honor, same page.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00016937",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Annie",
      "Kate",
      "Carolyn",
      "Jane",
      "Mr. Rohrbach",
      "Mr. Everdell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "New Mexico",
      "Arizona"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "765",
      "DOJ-OGR-00016937"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}