mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008116.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "509-1",
    "date": "11/24/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 509-1 Filed 11/24/21 Page 5 of 10 II. Dr. Hall's Opinion That Is Inadmissible The defendant offers no argument that Dr. Hall's Instead, the defendant pivots to the suggestion that Dr. Hall might offer This improvisation makes clear that the defendant is simply seeking to put a psychiatrist on the stand to attack Minor Victim-4, regardless of what exactly that psychiatrist might say: Nothing in Dr. Hall's report or the defendant's expert notice suggested that Dr. Hall would testify as an expert in .5 Indeed, Dr. Hall's report lists The case which the defendant explores at greatest length on this issue serves only to show how far she has strayed from the law. (See Opp. 12 (discussing United States v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1265 4 To the extent the defendant believes that Minor Victim-4's testimony on this subject will conflict with the statements she made to Dr. Hall, that is a subject that can only be addressed after the victim's testimony. 5 Nor does Dr. Hall's remarkably diverse resume betray expertise in (See Ex. C at 13, 20, 31 37, 39). 4 DOJ-OGR-00008116",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 509-1 Filed 11/24/21 Page 5 of 10",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. Dr. Hall's Opinion That Is Inadmissible",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant offers no argument that Dr. Hall's",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Instead, the defendant pivots to the suggestion that Dr. Hall might offer",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This improvisation makes clear that the defendant is simply seeking to put a psychiatrist on the stand to attack Minor Victim-4, regardless of what exactly that psychiatrist might say: Nothing in Dr. Hall's report or the defendant's expert notice suggested that Dr. Hall would testify as an expert in .5 Indeed, Dr. Hall's report lists",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The case which the defendant explores at greatest length on this issue serves only to show how far she has strayed from the law. (See Opp. 12 (discussing United States v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1265",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4 To the extent the defendant believes that Minor Victim-4's testimony on this subject will conflict with the statements she made to Dr. Hall, that is a subject that can only be addressed after the victim's testimony.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5 Nor does Dr. Hall's remarkably diverse resume betray expertise in (See Ex. C at 13, 20, 31 37, 39).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008116",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Hall",
      "Minor Victim-4"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/24/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "509-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008116"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and citations. The document is page 5 of 10."
}