mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009360.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "713",
    "document_number": "A-5756",
    "date": "02/24/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 713 of 130\nA-5756\n299\nC2grdau2 Brune - direct\n1 convey. As I think I've already said, though, when I reflect\n2 on the brief, I think we missed it. And it's something that I\n3 greatly regret, there is no question about that.\n4 Q. The Court convened a conference call on July 22nd, correct?\n5 A. Yes, that's right.\n6 Q. You participated on that call, correct?\n7 A. I did.\n8 Q. Indeed, the Court inquired of the defense counsel why he\n9 was getting two different versions of the facts, correct?\n10 A. Something along those lines, yes.\n11 Q. When you compare what you said in the July 21st letter to\n12 the facts as laid out in the brief, those are very\n13 different set of facts, correct?\n14 A. I can't sort of say for sure what Judge Pauley was\n15 thinking, but he certainly was conveying that he wanted to get\n16 to the bottom of things and that he was not happy with us.\n17 Q. That wasn't my question, Ms. Brune. My question was, if\n18 you compare the facts as they are laid out in your letter to\n19 the facts as they are laid out in the brief, those are two very\n20 different sets of facts, correct?\n21 A. I don't agree with you. I thought what you were asking me\n22 to say was what Judge Pauley was thinking.\n23 Q. No, that wasn't my question. Is it your testimony here,\n24 Ms. Brune, that you did not find it a material fact, the things\n25 that you uncovered prior to the return of the jury's verdict?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00009360",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00338-PAE Document 161 Filed 02/24/22 Page 713 of 130",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-5756",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "299",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2grdau2 Brune - direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 convey. As I think I've already said, though, when I reflect\n2 on the brief, I think we missed it. And it's something that I\n3 greatly regret, there is no question about that.\n4 Q. The Court convened a conference call on July 22nd, correct?\n5 A. Yes, that's right.\n6 Q. You participated on that call, correct?\n7 A. I did.\n8 Q. Indeed, the Court inquired of the defense counsel why he\n9 was getting two different versions of the facts, correct?\n10 A. Something along those lines, yes.\n11 Q. When you compare what you said in the July 21st letter to\n12 the facts as laid out in the brief, those are very\n13 different set of facts, correct?\n14 A. I can't sort of say for sure what Judge Pauley was\n15 thinking, but he certainly was conveying that he wanted to get\n16 to the bottom of things and that he was not happy with us.\n17 Q. That wasn't my question, Ms. Brune. My question was, if\n18 you compare the facts as they are laid out in your letter to\n19 the facts as they are laid out in the brief, those are two very\n20 different sets of facts, correct?\n21 A. I don't agree with you. I thought what you were asking me\n22 to say was what Judge Pauley was thinking.\n23 Q. No, that wasn't my question. Is it your testimony here,\n24 Ms. Brune, that you did not find it a material fact, the things\n25 that you uncovered prior to the return of the jury's verdict?",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009360",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Pauley",
      "Brune"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "July 22nd",
      "July 21st",
      "02/24/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00338-PAE",
      "A-5756",
      "161",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009360"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript. The text is clear and legible. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}