DOJ-OGR-00003090.json 2.6 KB

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667
  1. {
  2. "document_metadata": {
  3. "page_number": "156",
  4. "document_number": "204",
  5. "date": "04/16/21",
  6. "document_type": "court document",
  7. "has_handwriting": false,
  8. "has_stamps": false
  9. },
  10. "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 156 of 239\ndenial . . .”). A properly instructed jury could conclude after hearing all of the evidence at trial that the defendant intended the natural meaning of the words she used, not the allegedly truthful answer she suggests now, and therefore that she lied. In sum, the defendant’s post-hoc efforts to inject confusion into clear questioning are unavailing and should be rejected, and the jury should decide whether the defendant’s answers were false.\n2. July 2016 Deposition\nCount Six charges the defendant with perjury arising from three colloquies at the second deposition. Following that line of questioning, the following colloquy occurred:\n129\nDOJ-OGR-00003090",
  11. "text_blocks": [
  12. {
  13. "type": "printed",
  14. "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 156 of 239",
  15. "position": "header"
  16. },
  17. {
  18. "type": "printed",
  19. "content": "denial . . .”). A properly instructed jury could conclude after hearing all of the evidence at trial that the defendant intended the natural meaning of the words she used, not the allegedly truthful answer she suggests now, and therefore that she lied. In sum, the defendant’s post-hoc efforts to inject confusion into clear questioning are unavailing and should be rejected, and the jury should decide whether the defendant’s answers were false.",
  20. "position": "top"
  21. },
  22. {
  23. "type": "printed",
  24. "content": "2. July 2016 Deposition",
  25. "position": "middle"
  26. },
  27. {
  28. "type": "printed",
  29. "content": "Count Six charges the defendant with perjury arising from three colloquies at the second deposition.",
  30. "position": "middle"
  31. },
  32. {
  33. "type": "printed",
  34. "content": "Following that line of questioning, the following colloquy occurred:",
  35. "position": "middle"
  36. },
  37. {
  38. "type": "printed",
  39. "content": "129",
  40. "position": "footer"
  41. },
  42. {
  43. "type": "printed",
  44. "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003090",
  45. "position": "footer"
  46. }
  47. ],
  48. "entities": {
  49. "people": [
  50. "defendant"
  51. ],
  52. "organizations": [
  53. "DOJ"
  54. ],
  55. "locations": [],
  56. "dates": [
  57. "04/16/21",
  58. "July 2016"
  59. ],
  60. "reference_numbers": [
  61. "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
  62. "Document 204",
  63. "DOJ-OGR-00003090"
  64. ]
  65. },
  66. "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions, likely to protect sensitive information."
  67. }