mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021567.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "137",
    "document_number": "78",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page137 of 217\nSA-391\nM6SQmax1\n22\n1 To some extent, the government points, I think, to post conspiracy conduct, and that concerns me. And so I would like to ask you to draw my attention to what in the trial record specifically speaks to November and December of 2004.\n2 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.\n3 As a threshold matter, the government's understanding that the case law is that the question is what is the end date of the conspiracy. In other words, if the conspirators are taking actions periodically over time, the question is what is the last date of the conspiracy? What does the trial evidence establish about the final date? And here the trial evidence was that the conspiracy was ongoing through all of 2004 and into 2005.\n4 THE COURT: But to make that point, I think you're relying on post conspiracy evidence.\n5 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. We're relying on evidence that exceeds the date in the indictment, but it --\n6 THE COURT: It exceeds also the date of Carolyn's 18th birthday. And so it's not just what the indictment charges --\n7 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.\n8 THE COURT: -- but by a conspiracy that is dependent here on Carolyn being under 18 for its continuation. And so that's why I see what you're pointing to as post conspiracy, not only because it goes past what the indictment charged, but because I think legally you're pointing to non-conspiracy\n9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00021567",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page137 of 217",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SA-391",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1\n22",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 To some extent, the government points, I think, to post conspiracy conduct, and that concerns me. And so I would like to ask you to draw my attention to what in the trial record specifically speaks to November and December of 2004.\n2 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.\n3 As a threshold matter, the government's understanding that the case law is that the question is what is the end date of the conspiracy. In other words, if the conspirators are taking actions periodically over time, the question is what is the last date of the conspiracy? What does the trial evidence establish about the final date? And here the trial evidence was that the conspiracy was ongoing through all of 2004 and into 2005.\n4 THE COURT: But to make that point, I think you're relying on post conspiracy evidence.\n5 MS. MOE: No, your Honor. We're relying on evidence that exceeds the date in the indictment, but it --\n6 THE COURT: It exceeds also the date of Carolyn's 18th birthday. And so it's not just what the indictment charges --\n7 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.\n8 THE COURT: -- but by a conspiracy that is dependent here on Carolyn being under 18 for its continuation. And so that's why I see what you're pointing to as post conspiracy, not only because it goes past what the indictment charged, but because I think legally you're pointing to non-conspiracy",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021567",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Carolyn"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023",
      "November 2004",
      "December 2004",
      "2004",
      "2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 78",
      "3536039",
      "SA-391",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021567"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}