mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00017282.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "769",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 769 Filed 08/10/22 Page 4 of 19 3095 LCLVMAXT referred to. I think a more limited answer is something along the lines of: You have the admitted evidence relating to 3505-5. Something like that. MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think it's important to clarify for the jury that the particular document they requested is not in evidence; but that they may consider what they already have in the transcript and what they already have in the exhibits. THE COURT: That sounds pretty similar. MR. PAGLIUCA: Which is what I just said without saying the document is not in evidence. Because the testimony about the document is in evidence. I don't think I'm splitting hairs here. I think the evidence is what it is. THE COURT: How about then: You have all admitted exhibits, period. Because it's directly responsive to the question without assuming further questions. MR. PAGLIUCA: I think what we're struggling with is the difference between the testimony and the specific document. I think it diminishes the testimony by inferring that somehow it's not evidence before the jury. THE COURT: They are asking for the document, I presume in part because they have the testimony in front of them. MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. Which I'm happy to give them the 35 -- SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00017282",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 769 Filed 08/10/22 Page 4 of 19 3095 LCLVMAXT",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "referred to. I think a more limited answer is something along the lines of: You have the admitted evidence relating to 3505-5. Something like that. MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think it's important to clarify for the jury that the particular document they requested is not in evidence; but that they may consider what they already have in the transcript and what they already have in the exhibits. THE COURT: That sounds pretty similar. MR. PAGLIUCA: Which is what I just said without saying the document is not in evidence. Because the testimony about the document is in evidence. I don't think I'm splitting hairs here. I think the evidence is what it is. THE COURT: How about then: You have all admitted exhibits, period. Because it's directly responsive to the question without assuming further questions. MR. PAGLIUCA: I think what we're struggling with is the difference between the testimony and the specific document. I think it diminishes the testimony by inferring that somehow it's not evidence before the jury. THE COURT: They are asking for the document, I presume in part because they have the testimony in front of them. MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. Which I'm happy to give them the 35 --",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00017282",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. COMEY",
      "MR. PAGLIUCA"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "769",
      "3505-5",
      "DOJ-OGR-00017282"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a discussion between the court and lawyers about a specific document and its relevance to the jury. The transcript is well-formatted and easy to read."
}