mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021559.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "129",
    "document_number": "78",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page129 of 217\nSA-383\n\nM6SQmax1                    14\n1   that for now.\n2   Paragraph 72, defendant objects to the assertion that\n3   Epstein briefly penetrated Carolyn's vagina with his penis\n4   because her trial testimony the defense claims is contradicted\n5   by a 2009 deposition testimony. I overrule this objection.\n6   Again, I credit Carolyn's testimony. Carolyn plainly testified\n7   to this at trial.\n8   Paragraph 74, the defendant again objects to the\n9   assertion as to the age and timing. Again, we'll pick up on\n10  that issue when we discuss the appropriate guideline manual.\n11  Paragraphs 75 and 76 the defendant objects to the\n12  inclusion of these paragraphs in the presence report because\n13  the perjury counts have not been presented to a jury, and so\n14  she contends have no bearing on the sentence in this case. I\n15  do overrule this objection. A sentencing court's discretion is\n16  largely unlimited as to the kind of information it may\n17  consider. It's free to consider evidence of uncharged crimes,\n18  dropped counts of an indictment, criminal activity resulting in\n19  acquittal in determining sentence. United States v. Bennett,\n20  839 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2016). I may consider the information as\n21  long as the information is reliable and accurate. For the\n22  following reasons, I do conclude the information underlying the\n23  severed perjury charges is reliable. The defendant testified\n24  under oath in 2016 that she was not aware of Epstein's scheme\n25  to recruit underage girls for sexual massages and other than\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.... (212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021559",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page129 of 217",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SA-383",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1                    14\n1   that for now.\n2   Paragraph 72, defendant objects to the assertion that\n3   Epstein briefly penetrated Carolyn's vagina with his penis\n4   because her trial testimony the defense claims is contradicted\n5   by a 2009 deposition testimony. I overrule this objection.\n6   Again, I credit Carolyn's testimony. Carolyn plainly testified\n7   to this at trial.\n8   Paragraph 74, the defendant again objects to the\n9   assertion as to the age and timing. Again, we'll pick up on\n10  that issue when we discuss the appropriate guideline manual.\n11  Paragraphs 75 and 76 the defendant objects to the\n12  inclusion of these paragraphs in the presence report because\n13  the perjury counts have not been presented to a jury, and so\n14  she contends have no bearing on the sentence in this case. I\n15  do overrule this objection. A sentencing court's discretion is\n16  largely unlimited as to the kind of information it may\n17  consider. It's free to consider evidence of uncharged crimes,\n18  dropped counts of an indictment, criminal activity resulting in\n19  acquittal in determining sentence. United States v. Bennett,\n20  839 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2016). I may consider the information as\n21  long as the information is reliable and accurate. For the\n22  following reasons, I do conclude the information underlying the\n23  severed perjury charges is reliable. The defendant testified\n24  under oath in 2016 that she was not aware of Epstein's scheme\n25  to recruit underage girls for sexual massages and other than",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.... (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021559",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Carolyn",
      "Epstein",
      "Bennett"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023",
      "2009",
      "2016"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 78",
      "3536039",
      "Page129 of 217",
      "SA-383",
      "839 F.3d 153",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021559"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to a case involving Epstein and the defendant. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document includes a header with case information and a footer with the name of the reporting agency and a phone number."
}