mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010069.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "329",
    "document_number": "A-5786",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 329\n1 Trzaskoma take?\n2 A. Five minutes.\n3 Q. And I think you said earlier, let me take you through this\n4 again, that Ms. Trzaskoma articulated something to the effect\n5 of, correct me if I'm wrong, that she just wanted to let you\n6 know that she saw the suspension report. Is that fair?\n7 A. No. I think what she said was we wanted to let us know\n8 that after thinking about the note that we had received from\n9 Juror No. 1 she had recalled that there was a suspended lawyer\n10 with the same name and that she had wondered whether it was\n11 possible that they were the same person.\n12 Q. Did she say anything else to you?\n13 A. Well, we then discussed Juror No. 1's responses on voir\n14 dire and after that discussion my response was there's no way\n15 they're the same person.\n16 Q. So how would you describe the level of knowledge that Ms.\n17 Trzaskoma had when she came to you with respect to her degree\n18 of certainty that Juror No. 1 was the Catherine M. Conrad in\n19 the suspension report?\n20 A. I think that she had thought that there was a possibility\n21 that they were the same person, but she had reviewed the voir\n22 dire responses and they were entirely inconsistent with her\n23 being a lawyer.\n24 Q. Well, did she tell you, did Ms. Trzaskoma tell you that\n25 earlier that day she had reviewed the voir dire responses but\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00010069",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 329",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Trzaskoma take?\n2 A. Five minutes.\n3 Q. And I think you said earlier, let me take you through this\n4 again, that Ms. Trzaskoma articulated something to the effect\n5 of, correct me if I'm wrong, that she just wanted to let you\n6 know that she saw the suspension report. Is that fair?\n7 A. No. I think what she said was we wanted to let us know\n8 that after thinking about the note that we had received from\n9 Juror No. 1 she had recalled that there was a suspended lawyer\n10 with the same name and that she had wondered whether it was\n11 possible that they were the same person.\n12 Q. Did she say anything else to you?\n13 A. Well, we then discussed Juror No. 1's responses on voir\n14 dire and after that discussion my response was there's no way\n15 they're the same person.\n16 Q. So how would you describe the level of knowledge that Ms.\n17 Trzaskoma had when she came to you with respect to her degree\n18 of certainty that Juror No. 1 was the Catherine M. Conrad in\n19 the suspension report?\n20 A. I think that she had thought that there was a possibility\n21 that they were the same person, but she had reviewed the voir\n22 dire responses and they were entirely inconsistent with her\n23 being a lawyer.\n24 Q. Well, did she tell you, did Ms. Trzaskoma tell you that\n25 earlier that day she had reviewed the voir dire responses but",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010069",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Trzaskoma",
      "Edelstein",
      "Catherine M. Conrad"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "C2GFDAU3",
      "A-5786",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010069"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript. The text is mostly clear, but there may be some minor issues with OCR accuracy due to the font and quality of the original document."
}