DOJ-OGR-00006989.json 3.9 KB

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657
  1. {
  2. "document_metadata": {
  3. "page_number": "17",
  4. "document_number": "459",
  5. "date": "11/15/21",
  6. "document_type": "court transcript",
  7. "has_handwriting": false,
  8. "has_stamps": false
  9. },
  10. "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 17 of 43 17 LalWmaxC process until the 29th, I'd bring that panel of 50 to 60 qualified prospective jurors back. The parties would exercise -- I'd do that initial questioning to ensure no final issues. The parties would exercise their peremptories, and then I would excuse the unused or struck jurors, swear in our 18, give the instructions, and we'd get on our way. I will say that I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both. I'll also say that I believe both will be logistically possible, although the 29th is not yet totally certain, because jury selection in other cases will go forward on that day, occupying the larger spaces, and it impacts both available space and staff resources. But I believe we can work out the logistics. But before I finalize either way, I wanted to hear the parties' views. Ms. Pomerantz. MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. The government appreciates the Court's thoughtfulness on this. The government's view would be that November 19 would be strongly preferred to -- and I would note, your Honor, that because there are witnesses traveling out of state, and in light of Covid-related issues, having a firm start date, a date when we know witnesses will start to be put on the stand, that's very helpful for planning purposes. THE COURT: Yes, we will start on the 29th. There is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00006989",
  11. "text_blocks": [
  12. {
  13. "type": "printed",
  14. "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 459 Filed 11/15/21 Page 17 of 43 17",
  15. "position": "header"
  16. },
  17. {
  18. "type": "printed",
  19. "content": "LalWmaxC process until the 29th, I'd bring that panel of 50 to 60 qualified prospective jurors back. The parties would exercise -- I'd do that initial questioning to ensure no final issues. The parties would exercise their peremptories, and then I would excuse the unused or struck jurors, swear in our 18, give the instructions, and we'd get on our way. I will say that I think there are advantages and disadvantages to both. I'll also say that I believe both will be logistically possible, although the 29th is not yet totally certain, because jury selection in other cases will go forward on that day, occupying the larger spaces, and it impacts both available space and staff resources. But I believe we can work out the logistics. But before I finalize either way, I wanted to hear the parties' views. Ms. Pomerantz. MS. POMERANTZ: Thank you, your Honor. The government appreciates the Court's thoughtfulness on this. The government's view would be that November 19 would be strongly preferred to -- and I would note, your Honor, that because there are witnesses traveling out of state, and in light of Covid-related issues, having a firm start date, a date when we know witnesses will start to be put on the stand, that's very helpful for planning purposes. THE COURT: Yes, we will start on the 29th. There is",
  20. "position": "main content"
  21. },
  22. {
  23. "type": "printed",
  24. "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  25. "position": "footer"
  26. },
  27. {
  28. "type": "printed",
  29. "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006989",
  30. "position": "footer"
  31. }
  32. ],
  33. "entities": {
  34. "people": [
  35. "Ms. Pomerantz"
  36. ],
  37. "organizations": [
  38. "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
  39. "THE COURT",
  40. "THE GOVERNMENT"
  41. ],
  42. "locations": [
  43. "state"
  44. ],
  45. "dates": [
  46. "November 19",
  47. "29th",
  48. "11/15/21"
  49. ],
  50. "reference_numbers": [
  51. "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
  52. "Document 459",
  53. "DOJ-OGR-00006989"
  54. ]
  55. },
  56. "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
  57. }