mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010006.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "266",
    "document_number": "A-5723",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "C2GFDAU1 Brune - direct 266\n1 Ms. Brune?\n2 THE WITNESS: I didn't, your Honor.\n3 THE COURT: Go ahead and complete your answer, please.\n4 A. We had a lot of Google-type information on a lot of\n5 different jurors. There were occasions where the information\n6 was obviously pertaining to the same person. That was fine.\n7 There was certainly situations where we were able to say, well,\n8 just not the same person and set it aside. I didn't sort of go\n9 to the judge each time and say, you know, Mr. Smith there says\n10 that he's -- and now I'm just giving the example -- a retired\n11 car mechanic, but I know there's a Mr. Smith who has some other\n12 occupation. I listened to the voir dire responses and I\n13 credited them.\n14 Q. The question, though, Ms. Brune, and just so I'm clear\n15 about what your testimony is, are you saying that you could not\n16 have asked Judge Pauley to ask the question, just a very\n17 specific question of the juror, right then and there?\n18 A. I certainly understood that I could have asked Judge Pauley\n19 to inquire.\n20 Q. And you didn't do that?\n21 A. I did not.\n22 Q. And you knew you could have done that, correct?\n23 A. Of course.\n24 Q. Now, you had ways to narrow down the information that you\n25 had, correct?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00010006",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2GFDAU1 Brune - direct 266",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Ms. Brune?\n2 THE WITNESS: I didn't, your Honor.\n3 THE COURT: Go ahead and complete your answer, please.\n4 A. We had a lot of Google-type information on a lot of\n5 different jurors. There were occasions where the information\n6 was obviously pertaining to the same person. That was fine.\n7 There was certainly situations where we were able to say, well,\n8 just not the same person and set it aside. I didn't sort of go\n9 to the judge each time and say, you know, Mr. Smith there says\n10 that he's -- and now I'm just giving the example -- a retired\n11 car mechanic, but I know there's a Mr. Smith who has some other\n12 occupation. I listened to the voir dire responses and I\n13 credited them.\n14 Q. The question, though, Ms. Brune, and just so I'm clear\n15 about what your testimony is, are you saying that you could not\n16 have asked Judge Pauley to ask the question, just a very\n17 specific question of the juror, right then and there?\n18 A. I certainly understood that I could have asked Judge Pauley\n19 to inquire.\n20 Q. And you didn't do that?\n21 A. I did not.\n22 Q. And you knew you could have done that, correct?\n23 A. Of course.\n24 Q. Now, you had ways to narrow down the information that you\n25 had, correct?",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010006",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Brune",
      "Judge Pauley",
      "Mr. Smith"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "A-5723",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010006"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}