mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007128.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "77",
    "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 77 of 127 77 LB1TMAX3\n\n1 irrelevant to the crimes charged, correct? Under the age of 17\n2 is what is legally relevant.\n3 MS. MOE: That's certainly true with respect to the\n4 elements as to the other victims, but I think as a matter of\n5 common sense, a jury understanding that the defendant is\n6 willing to provide Epstein with a girl at the age of 17 would\n7 certainly speak to her knowledge of his sexual preferences.\n8 THE COURT: Why doesn't it speak to a knowledge of\n9 sexual preferences to someone just above the age of consent?\n10 MS. MOE: Well, your Honor, I think the close\n11 proximity of ages, it speaks to her knowledge about his\n12 preference for very young girls.\n13 I would also note that, although the age of 17 is\n14 relevant with respect to the Mann Act counts, with respect to\n15 the trafficking counts, the applicable age is there is 18.\n16 THE COURT: I began this whole series by asking, like\n17 eight times and very clearly, is there any sense in which this\n18 individual, the conduct that's -- assuming it to all be true\n19 with respect to this individual, could establish an element of\n20 any of the crimes charged?\n21 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. With respect to that\n22 victim, that's certainly the case. But speaking to direct\n23 evidence of knowledge and preferences, it's certainly also\n24 direct evidence of the defendant's knowledge with respect to\n25 the sex trafficking counts where the age of consent there is\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00007128",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 77 of 127 77 LB1TMAX3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 irrelevant to the crimes charged, correct? Under the age of 17\n2 is what is legally relevant.\n3 MS. MOE: That's certainly true with respect to the\n4 elements as to the other victims, but I think as a matter of\n5 common sense, a jury understanding that the defendant is\n6 willing to provide Epstein with a girl at the age of 17 would\n7 certainly speak to her knowledge of his sexual preferences.\n8 THE COURT: Why doesn't it speak to a knowledge of\n9 sexual preferences to someone just above the age of consent?\n10 MS. MOE: Well, your Honor, I think the close\n11 proximity of ages, it speaks to her knowledge about his\n12 preference for very young girls.\n13 I would also note that, although the age of 17 is\n14 relevant with respect to the Mann Act counts, with respect to\n15 the trafficking counts, the applicable age is there is 18.\n16 THE COURT: I began this whole series by asking, like\n17 eight times and very clearly, is there any sense in which this\n18 individual, the conduct that's -- assuming it to all be true\n19 with respect to this individual, could establish an element of\n20 any of the crimes charged?\n21 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. With respect to that\n22 victim, that's certainly the case. But speaking to direct\n23 evidence of knowledge and preferences, it's certainly also\n24 direct evidence of the defendant's knowledge with respect to\n25 the sex trafficking counts where the age of consent there is",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007128",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MOE",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007128"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}