mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007055.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 4 of 127 4\n\nparties on issues, some I'm prepared to resolve without further discussion. For all of them, to the extent I can resolve them or give guidance today, I will. In some cases, by necessity, I will reserve.\n\nOf course, as with all in limine motions, those are preliminary rulings based on what I know now about the anticipated evidence and arguments. My preliminary rulings are to guide the parties in advance of trial, to guide opening statements and the like. Facts on the ground, of course, can change during trial and you must reraise issues if you think the other side has opened the door or that premises of certain pretrial holdings no longer hold.\n\nWith that, I'm going to move slightly out of order and begin with the defendant's 12th motion in limine because it involves terminology questions that apply throughout. After that motion I will address the government's motions in order and then address the remaining defense motions in order.\n\nIn the defendant's 12th motion in limine, the defense asked the Court to preclude use of the terms \"victim\" and \"minor victim.\" The motion is denied. Government counsel can use the word \"victim\" if they're referring to someone alleged to be a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment, and they may use the word \"minor\" to describe individuals that were, at the relevant time period, under the age of consent.\n\nAs my colleague, Judge Furman, has explained,\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00007055",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 4 of 127 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "parties on issues, some I'm prepared to resolve without further discussion. For all of them, to the extent I can resolve them or give guidance today, I will. In some cases, by necessity, I will reserve.\n\nOf course, as with all in limine motions, those are preliminary rulings based on what I know now about the anticipated evidence and arguments. My preliminary rulings are to guide the parties in advance of trial, to guide opening statements and the like. Facts on the ground, of course, can change during trial and you must reraise issues if you think the other side has opened the door or that premises of certain pretrial holdings no longer hold.\n\nWith that, I'm going to move slightly out of order and begin with the defendant's 12th motion in limine because it involves terminology questions that apply throughout. After that motion I will address the government's motions in order and then address the remaining defense motions in order.\n\nIn the defendant's 12th motion in limine, the defense asked the Court to preclude use of the terms \"victim\" and \"minor victim.\" The motion is denied. Government counsel can use the word \"victim\" if they're referring to someone alleged to be a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment, and they may use the word \"minor\" to describe individuals that were, at the relevant time period, under the age of consent.\n\nAs my colleague, Judge Furman, has explained,",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007055",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Furman"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "465",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007055"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}