mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010076.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "336",
    "document_number": "A-5793",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 336\n1 memo that had been put together and the link to the Westlaw\n2 report after we received the letter from Catherine Conrad.\n3 Q. And did you discuss it with Susan Brune?\n4 A. Discuss what?\n5 Q. The Westlaw report and your examination of it as well as\n6 your examination of the suspension report.\n7 A. I believe I -- well, the suspension report, if you mean the\n8 Appellate Division order?\n9 Q. Yes.\n10 A. I believe I discussed the Appellate Division order. I did\n11 not discuss the Westlaw report with her.\n12 Q. What was the nature of your discussion with her?\n13 A. Well, I believe that after we received the June 20th\n14 letter, I first had a conversation with Susan just upon receipt\n15 of the letter and reading it and the substance of it, you know,\n16 I was very disturbed by the letter. This has nothing to do\n17 with Catherine Conrad being the suspended lawyer because at\n18 that point I didn't know. When I first received the letter I\n19 was sort of, I was disturbed and shocked by it. We had spent\n20 three months in the courtroom where everyone wants to know what\n21 the jury is thinking about various subjects. We then receive a\n22 letter that gives us some insight into the jury deliberations\n23 and I was very taken aback by some of the things that she said.\n24 I felt that we had sat here trying to read the tea leaves with\n25 various juror notes on the one hand and it is just very\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00010076",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 336",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 memo that had been put together and the link to the Westlaw\n2 report after we received the letter from Catherine Conrad.\n3 Q. And did you discuss it with Susan Brune?\n4 A. Discuss what?\n5 Q. The Westlaw report and your examination of it as well as\n6 your examination of the suspension report.\n7 A. I believe I -- well, the suspension report, if you mean the\n8 Appellate Division order?\n9 Q. Yes.\n10 A. I believe I discussed the Appellate Division order. I did\n11 not discuss the Westlaw report with her.\n12 Q. What was the nature of your discussion with her?\n13 A. Well, I believe that after we received the June 20th\n14 letter, I first had a conversation with Susan just upon receipt\n15 of the letter and reading it and the substance of it, you know,\n16 I was very disturbed by the letter. This has nothing to do\n17 with Catherine Conrad being the suspended lawyer because at\n18 that point I didn't know. When I first received the letter I\n19 was sort of, I was disturbed and shocked by it. We had spent\n20 three months in the courtroom where everyone wants to know what\n21 the jury is thinking about various subjects. We then receive a\n22 letter that gives us some insight into the jury deliberations\n23 and I was very taken aback by some of the things that she said.\n24 I felt that we had sat here trying to read the tea leaves with\n25 various juror notes on the one hand and it is just very",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010076",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Edelstein",
      "Catherine Conrad",
      "Susan Brune"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "Appellate Division"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "June 20th"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "C2GFDAU3",
      "A-5793",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010076"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
}