mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010010.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "270",
    "document_number": "A-5727",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "Court Transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "C2GFDAU1 Brune - direct 270\n1 A. That's correct, it's Judge Pauley's courtroom.\n2 Q. And other than the peremptory challenges it was not. your\n3 decision whether or not to seat any particular juror, correct?\n4 A. He was the arbiter of the challenges for cause.\n5 Q. And you and your team in fact raised questions and concerns\n6 with the Court during the voir dire?\n7 A. Yes, we did.\n8 Q. That includes Ms. Trzaskoma raising a concern about a, or\n9 an issue about a potential juror who worked at Goldman Sachs,\n10 correct?\n11 A. I'm sure it's so. I can't remember this as I sit here, but\n12 she certainly raised questions about prospective jurors.\n13 Q. And prior to the -- well, you recall, do you not, that the\n14 voir dire extended over several days?\n15 A. I do.\n16 Q. And prior to the start of the second day of voir dire,\n17 Judge Pauley solicited of counsel whether or not they had any\n18 additional questions to pose to the jury pool?\n19 A. I'm sure he did. I can't remember it, but he certainly was\n20 open to questions proposed by defense counsel and government\n21 counsel.\n22 Q. And do you recall that at that point Ms. Trzaskoma\n23 specifically asked the Court to ask another question of the\n24 jurors, that was, did they have any negative experiences with\n25 lawyers or accountants or financial advisers?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00010010",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2GFDAU1 Brune - direct 270",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 A. That's correct, it's Judge Pauley's courtroom.\n2 Q. And other than the peremptory challenges it was not. your\n3 decision whether or not to seat any particular juror, correct?\n4 A. He was the arbiter of the challenges for cause.\n5 Q. And you and your team in fact raised questions and concerns\n6 with the Court during the voir dire?\n7 A. Yes, we did.\n8 Q. That includes Ms. Trzaskoma raising a concern about a, or\n9 an issue about a potential juror who worked at Goldman Sachs,\n10 correct?\n11 A. I'm sure it's so. I can't remember this as I sit here, but\n12 she certainly raised questions about prospective jurors.\n13 Q. And prior to the -- well, you recall, do you not, that the\n14 voir dire extended over several days?\n15 A. I do.\n16 Q. And prior to the start of the second day of voir dire,\n17 Judge Pauley solicited of counsel whether or not they had any\n18 additional questions to pose to the jury pool?\n19 A. I'm sure he did. I can't remember it, but he certainly was\n20 open to questions proposed by defense counsel and government\n21 counsel.\n22 Q. And do you recall that at that point Ms. Trzaskoma\n23 specifically asked the Court to ask another question of the\n24 jurors, that was, did they have any negative experiences with\n25 lawyers or accountants or financial advisers?",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010010",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Pauley",
      "Ms. Trzaskoma",
      "Brune"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Goldman Sachs",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "A-5727",
      "C2GFDAU1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010010"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
}