mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007062.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 11 of 127\nLB1TMAX1\n1 to reveal identifying information because knowledge of that\n2 information by the jury might be important to its deliberations\n3 as to the witness's credibility or knowledgability. That's\n4 quoting the Marti case again. In particular, the defense\n5 argues that revealing the alleged victims' and witnesses'\n6 identities is necessary to probe the nature of the alleged\n7 victims' occupations as relevant to the credibility and elicit\n8 certain impeachment evidence.\n9 I agree that such cross-examination cannot be unduly\n10 limited and the government concedes the same. The government's\n11 motions in limine 15, n. 6; government reply at 17 to 18. And\n12 I will ensure that it is not.\n13 My decision today grants the government's request to\n14 limit the public disclosure of the alleged victims and some\n15 witnesses' names and other specifically identifying\n16 information, such as the specific names of current and past\n17 employers, names of family members and addresses.\n18 Limiting disclosure of the specifically identifying\n19 information does not limit the anticipated cross-examination\n20 that the defense described in its papers. All lines of inquiry\n21 the defense outlined in its response are available without\n22 disclosing specific names of employers or other specifically\n23 identifying information. For example, the defense can probe\n24 the genre, nature, and trajectories of witnesses' careers\n25 without eliciting the specific employer name, but the defense's\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 11 of 127",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LB1TMAX1\n1 to reveal identifying information because knowledge of that\n2 information by the jury might be important to its deliberations\n3 as to the witness's credibility or knowledgability. That's\n4 quoting the Marti case again. In particular, the defense\n5 argues that revealing the alleged victims' and witnesses'\n6 identities is necessary to probe the nature of the alleged\n7 victims' occupations as relevant to the credibility and elicit\n8 certain impeachment evidence.\n9 I agree that such cross-examination cannot be unduly\n10 limited and the government concedes the same. The government's\n11 motions in limine 15, n. 6; government reply at 17 to 18. And\n12 I will ensure that it is not.\n13 My decision today grants the government's request to\n14 limit the public disclosure of the alleged victims and some\n15 witnesses' names and other specifically identifying\n16 information, such as the specific names of current and past\n17 employers, names of family members and addresses.\n18 Limiting disclosure of the specifically identifying\n19 information does not limit the anticipated cross-examination\n20 that the defense described in its papers. All lines of inquiry\n21 the defense outlined in its response are available without\n22 disclosing specific names of employers or other specifically\n23 identifying information. For example, the defense can probe\n24 the genre, nature, and trajectories of witnesses' careers\n25 without eliciting the specific employer name, but the defense's",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "465"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. It is typed and contains no handwritten text or stamps. The content discusses a legal case and the limitations on disclosure of certain information."
}