mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010080.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "121",
    "document_number": "A-5797",
    "date": "2021-03-24",
    "document_type": "Court Transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 340\n1 suspension report, she did not characterize it in that way.\n2 All she said was there was a suspended lawyer with the name\n3 Catherine Conrad.\n4 Q. And you asked nothing of her on what facts she had that\n5 demonstrated that to her?\n6 A. No, I didn't.\n7 Q. And is it correct that Ms. Trzaskoma asked you or threw out\n8 the possibility of doing further research on this Catherine\n9 Conrad that she had found information about?\n10 A. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question.\n11 Q. Did she ask whether anything more should be done to look\n12 into this?\n13 A. We discussed after she raised the issue with us, you know,\n14 what Juror No. 1's responses were on voir dire. We concluded\n15 that we did not believe they were the same person and we\n16 decided that we didn't need to do any more research at that\n17 point.\n18 Q. Well, you say \"we discussed.\" Tell us your best\n19 recollection what was said.\n20 A. I can't recall precisely what was said. I think what we\n21 did was we reviewed what Catherine Conrad had said on voir\n22 dire, what her responses were and to us that ruled out the\n23 possibility that she was the suspended lawyer. It was just\n24 inconceivable to me that she was a suspended lawyer. Why would\n25 she lie about her highest level of education?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00010080",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 340",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 suspension report, she did not characterize it in that way.\n2 All she said was there was a suspended lawyer with the name\n3 Catherine Conrad.\n4 Q. And you asked nothing of her on what facts she had that\n5 demonstrated that to her?\n6 A. No, I didn't.\n7 Q. And is it correct that Ms. Trzaskoma asked you or threw out\n8 the possibility of doing further research on this Catherine\n9 Conrad that she had found information about?\n10 A. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question.\n11 Q. Did she ask whether anything more should be done to look\n12 into this?\n13 A. We discussed after she raised the issue with us, you know,\n14 what Juror No. 1's responses were on voir dire. We concluded\n15 that we did not believe they were the same person and we\n16 decided that we didn't need to do any more research at that\n17 point.\n18 Q. Well, you say \"we discussed.\" Tell us your best\n19 recollection what was said.\n20 A. I can't recall precisely what was said. I think what we\n21 did was we reviewed what Catherine Conrad had said on voir\n22 dire, what her responses were and to us that ruled out the\n23 possibility that she was the suspended lawyer. It was just\n24 inconceivable to me that she was a suspended lawyer. Why would\n25 she lie about her highest level of education?",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010080",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Edelstein",
      "Catherine Conrad",
      "Ms. Trzaskoma"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "2021-03-24"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "A-5797",
      "C2GFDAU3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010080"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}