DOJ-OGR-00017004.json 4.0 KB

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253
  1. {
  2. "document_metadata": {
  3. "page_number": "78",
  4. "document_number": "765",
  5. "date": "08/10/22",
  6. "document_type": "court transcript",
  7. "has_handwriting": false,
  8. "has_stamps": false
  9. },
  10. "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 78 of 95 2816 LCIAMAX2ps 1 objected to. 2 So here's just a slight change. Line 4. \"Each party 3 had an opportunity to call any of these witnesses.\" 4 MR. EVERDELL: We would accept that, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: It's a similar meaning. It's not quite 6 equal. I'll adopt that. \"Each party had an opportunity to 7 call any of the witnesses.\" 8 MR. ROHRBACH: If your Honor is thinking of that 9 change, we would ask to just include that in our letter later. 10 THE COURT: That's fine. So the proposal would be 11 that, line 1, cut \"equally available to both sides\" from the 12 heading, and then, line 4, cut \"equal opportunity or lack of 13 opportunity\" and change to \"an opportunity.\" 14 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. 15 THE COURT: I think it's clearly true, Mr. Rohrbach, 16 this is standard language, and I've given it a slightly, 17 slightly altered meaning, to take emphasis off of \"equal 18 opportunity.\" So I think it still captures the meaning of the 19 charge. 20 MR. ROHRBACH: I just -- we will think about it and 21 include it in our letter. But just to preview for the Court, 22 part of our concern is that the most obvious witness who was 23 available to both sides and who we expect the defense to 24 comment on is Virginia Roberts, who was described as a victim 25 but did not testify and she was fully available to the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00017004",
  11. "text_blocks": [
  12. {
  13. "type": "printed",
  14. "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 78 of 95 2816 LCIAMAX2ps",
  15. "position": "header"
  16. },
  17. {
  18. "type": "printed",
  19. "content": "1 objected to. 2 So here's just a slight change. Line 4. \"Each party 3 had an opportunity to call any of these witnesses.\" 4 MR. EVERDELL: We would accept that, your Honor. 5 THE COURT: It's a similar meaning. It's not quite 6 equal. I'll adopt that. \"Each party had an opportunity to 7 call any of the witnesses.\" 8 MR. ROHRBACH: If your Honor is thinking of that 9 change, we would ask to just include that in our letter later. 10 THE COURT: That's fine. So the proposal would be 11 that, line 1, cut \"equally available to both sides\" from the 12 heading, and then, line 4, cut \"equal opportunity or lack of 13 opportunity\" and change to \"an opportunity.\" 14 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. 15 THE COURT: I think it's clearly true, Mr. Rohrbach, 16 this is standard language, and I've given it a slightly, 17 slightly altered meaning, to take emphasis off of \"equal 18 opportunity.\" So I think it still captures the meaning of the 19 charge. 20 MR. ROHRBACH: I just -- we will think about it and 21 include it in our letter. But just to preview for the Court, 22 part of our concern is that the most obvious witness who was 23 available to both sides and who we expect the defense to 24 comment on is Virginia Roberts, who was described as a victim 25 but did not testify and she was fully available to the",
  20. "position": "main content"
  21. },
  22. {
  23. "type": "printed",
  24. "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  25. "position": "footer"
  26. },
  27. {
  28. "type": "printed",
  29. "content": "DOJ-OGR-00017004",
  30. "position": "footer"
  31. }
  32. ],
  33. "entities": {
  34. "people": [
  35. "Mr. Everdell",
  36. "Mr. Rohrbach",
  37. "Virginia Roberts"
  38. ],
  39. "organizations": [
  40. "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
  41. ],
  42. "locations": [],
  43. "dates": [
  44. "08/10/22"
  45. ],
  46. "reference_numbers": [
  47. "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
  48. "765",
  49. "DOJ-OGR-00017004"
  50. ]
  51. },
  52. "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a discussion between the court and lawyers about a proposed change to a jury instruction. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
  53. }