mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010022.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "282",
    "document_number": "A-5739",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "C2GFDAU1 Brune - direct 282\n1 occurred to you that you could have your team look into this,\n2 correct?\n3 A. I certainly thought, well, here's this information on\n4 Google. Here's the sworn statement. We could have certainly\n5 done more. I didn't think it was proper in light of the fact\n6 that I didn't think there was anything to the idea that she was\n7 a suspended lawyer.\n8 Q. Based on what information, actual information?\n9 A. I credited her sworn voir dire responses. I went through\n10 the reasoning that I described that the note in a way ruled out\n11 the idea that she was a lawyer, and matched up with the idea\n12 that she was a litigant in the personal injury suit, and it\n13 made no sense that a lawyer would sit in a voir dire and lie\n14 that way.\n15 Q. Did you read the indictment in this case, Ms. Brune?\n16 A. I read the indictment in this case.\n17 Q. And you understood that much of the indictment focused\n18 around the misconduct of lawyers, correct?\n19 A. That is certainly what the indictment alleged.\n20 Q. And a number of the defendants were lawyers, correct?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. And a number of the cooperators and codefendants who\n23 pleaded guilty were lawyers, correct?\n24 A. If what you're asking me is --\n25 Q. It's a simple question, Ms. Brune.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00010022",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2GFDAU1 Brune - direct 282",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 occurred to you that you could have your team look into this,\n2 correct?\n3 A. I certainly thought, well, here's this information on\n4 Google. Here's the sworn statement. We could have certainly\n5 done more. I didn't think it was proper in light of the fact\n6 that I didn't think there was anything to the idea that she was\n7 a suspended lawyer.\n8 Q. Based on what information, actual information?\n9 A. I credited her sworn voir dire responses. I went through\n10 the reasoning that I described that the note in a way ruled out\n11 the idea that she was a lawyer, and matched up with the idea\n12 that she was a litigant in the personal injury suit, and it\n13 made no sense that a lawyer would sit in a voir dire and lie\n14 that way.\n15 Q. Did you read the indictment in this case, Ms. Brune?\n16 A. I read the indictment in this case.\n17 Q. And you understood that much of the indictment focused\n18 around the misconduct of lawyers, correct?\n19 A. That is certainly what the indictment alleged.\n20 Q. And a number of the defendants were lawyers, correct?\n21 A. Yes.\n22 Q. And a number of the cooperators and codefendants who\n23 pleaded guilty were lawyers, correct?\n24 A. If what you're asking me is --\n25 Q. It's a simple question, Ms. Brune.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010022",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Brune"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "A-5739",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010022",
      "(212) 805-0300"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}