github-mirrors
/
mirror-epstein-docs


			
				
					
						
						
							1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556575859606162636465666768697071727374757677787980
							{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "78",
    "document_number": "58",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page78 of 221\nA-278\n30\nM387MAX1 our follow up: How long did this go on? Were you home when this happened? What was the interaction between you and the abusers and family members? These are all things that go to the similarity.\nTHE COURT: I have the same response. I considered those questions. We had, I think it was Juror 21 who had talked about familial abuse. The defense didn't propose to the core questions of impartiality and fairness, for example, request those questions and they didn't strike for cause, for example, some of the proposed jurors who indicated yes, the defense didn't inquire into the specific similarities and the like, request follow up as to the bottom line request is what is in issue. So that request is denied.\nAny other proposed follow up? I have a few things that turned up more. Mr. EVERDELL: Yes, I asked Judge Sweeney, you asked certain things that you believe that I do not believe says what this case is about, it is about the summary of the case which specifically says what this case is about, it is about sexual abuse of a minor, and did he just fly through that as well?\nIt is clear that this juror has supplemented.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\n29\nMR. EVERDELL: In our submissions, but that you were in therapy, you talked publicly about the fact what was the nature of the therapy? Does it deal with your experiences as victim of sexual abuse? What was the healing process that you talked about? Does it involve addressing this issue of prior child sexual abuse?\nWere you in therapy during the trial? Is this an issue that you are still dealing with?\nTHE COURT: I did review those questions proposed and I considered them. The defense did not propose any comparable questions during the voir dire process who indicated yes to this question and indicated a history of sexual abuse, so those requests are denied.\nAny other follow-up requests?\nMR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think we need to talk further about the fact this happened multiple times. We talked about the fact this happened, happened and a friend, a stepbrother and multiple times. I think we need to understand because I'm not trying to pry, your Honor, I'm trying to get to these details, but it is relevant, the extent of this juror's abuse and whether that lines up with the testimony we heard from the victims is relevant in an inquiry to bias.\nAnd I think we needed to understand a little more about similar questions that we proposed - we marked - to the Court in\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25\nDOJ-OGR-00020904",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page78 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-278",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "30\nM387MAX1 our follow up: How long did this go on? Were you home when this happened? What was the interaction between you and the abusers and family members? These are all things that go to the similarity.\nTHE COURT: I have the same response. I considered those questions. We had, I think it was Juror 21 who had talked about familial abuse. The defense didn't propose to the core questions of impartiality and fairness, for example, request those questions and they didn't strike for cause, for example, some of the proposed jurors who indicated yes, the defense didn't inquire into the specific similarities and the like, request follow up as to the bottom line request is what is in issue. So that request is denied.\nAny other proposed follow up? I have a few things that turned up more. Mr. EVERDELL: Yes, I asked Judge Sweeney, you asked certain things that you believe that I do not believe says what this case is about, it is about the summary of the case which specifically says what this case is about, it is about sexual abuse of a minor, and did he just fly through that as well?\nIt is clear that this juror has supplemented.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "29\nMR. EVERDELL: In our submissions, but that you were in therapy, you talked publicly about the fact what was the nature of the therapy? Does it deal with your experiences as victim of sexual abuse? What was the healing process that you talked about? Does it involve addressing this issue of prior child sexual abuse?\nWere you in therapy during the trial? Is this an issue that you are still dealing with?\nTHE COURT: I did review those questions proposed and I considered them. The defense did not propose any comparable questions during the voir dire process who indicated yes to this question and indicated a history of sexual abuse, so those requests are denied.\nAny other follow-up requests?\nMR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think we need to talk further about the fact this happened multiple times. We talked about the fact this happened, happened and a friend, a stepbrother and multiple times. I think we need to understand because I'm not trying to pry, your Honor, I'm trying to get to these details, but it is relevant, the extent of this juror's abuse and whether that lines up with the testimony we heard from the victims is relevant in an inquiry to bias.\nAnd I think we needed to understand a little more about similar questions that we proposed - we marked - to the Court in",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020904",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. EVERDELL",
      "Judge Sweeney"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "3475901",
      "Page78 of 221",
      "A-278",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020904"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}