mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00017002.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "76 of 95",
    "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 76 of 95 2814 LCIAMAX2ps that we intended to call as a witness. THE COURT: There was a lawyer letter indicating that they had received a subpoena and they intended to invoke. I asked many, many times if there was an application with respect to it. I never got one. So I'm not sure how to think of that. It's certainly true that, if someone invokes, the defense can't offer immunity the way that the government can. That's true in every case. This charge is quite standard, though standardly objected to, but I don't know that I see anything in this case that would distinguish its application based on what you've just indicated. MR. EVERDELL: In addition to what I had just indicated, just for purpose of completeness, there are a number of witnesses who, based on the witness testimony in this case, there would be people who the government -- who we normally may have considered calling as a witness but who the government clearly could have charged, criminally, based on the testimony we heard. And I won't name names if we don't want to do that. But I think we probably know who we're talking about here. And that is, you know, had we tried to call that witness or those witnesses, they undoubtedly would have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights. In fact, as some of them -- one of them was not called by the government and would have had to have been given statutory immunity or granted immunity to be able to testify, by the government, if they had decided to call them. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00017002",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 76 of 95 2814 LCIAMAX2ps",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "that we intended to call as a witness. THE COURT: There was a lawyer letter indicating that they had received a subpoena and they intended to invoke. I asked many, many times if there was an application with respect to it. I never got one. So I'm not sure how to think of that. It's certainly true that, if someone invokes, the defense can't offer immunity the way that the government can. That's true in every case. This charge is quite standard, though standardly objected to, but I don't know that I see anything in this case that would distinguish its application based on what you've just indicated. MR. EVERDELL: In addition to what I had just indicated, just for purpose of completeness, there are a number of witnesses who, based on the witness testimony in this case, there would be people who the government -- who we normally may have considered calling as a witness but who the government clearly could have charged, criminally, based on the testimony we heard. And I won't name names if we don't want to do that. But I think we probably know who we're talking about here. And that is, you know, had we tried to call that witness or those witnesses, they undoubtedly would have invoked their Fifth Amendment rights. In fact, as some of them -- one of them was not called by the government and would have had to have been given statutory immunity or granted immunity to be able to testify, by the government, if they had decided to call them.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00017002",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "765",
      "DOJ-OGR-00017002"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}