mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010084.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "344",
    "document_number": "A-5801",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 344\n1 Q. In the brief, is it fair to say that the facts section\n2 conveys the notion that you discovered or you commenced your\n3 discovery and attained your knowledge of the Appellate Division\n4 suspension report only after you received the letter of\n5 Catherine Conrad? Yes or no?\n6 A. I can see now that that might be the impression.\n7 Q. Ms. Edelstein, I asked you a simple question. Weren't you\n8 the one who stood at this podium and raised your voice with Dr.\n9 DeRosa about him not answering your questions? Do you remember\n10 that?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. Okay, can you answer my questions the way I asked them or\n13 in response to my question? Would you do that, please?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. Wouldn't you agree with me that the facts as laid out in\n16 your brief convey the notion that you learned of the Appellate\n17 Division report only after you received the juror note; true or\n18 false?\n19 A. I find that a difficult answer, question to answer true or\n20 false. I can see now how that might be the impression that is\n21 conveyed by the brief.\n22 Q. And that --\n23 A. That certainly was not our intention at the time. I\n24 certainly did not, we did not intend to create a misleading\n25 impression. Our focus at the time was trying to show that\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00010084",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 344",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Q. In the brief, is it fair to say that the facts section\n2 conveys the notion that you discovered or you commenced your\n3 discovery and attained your knowledge of the Appellate Division\n4 suspension report only after you received the letter of\n5 Catherine Conrad? Yes or no?\n6 A. I can see now that that might be the impression.\n7 Q. Ms. Edelstein, I asked you a simple question. Weren't you\n8 the one who stood at this podium and raised your voice with Dr.\n9 DeRosa about him not answering your questions? Do you remember\n10 that?\n11 A. Yes.\n12 Q. Okay, can you answer my questions the way I asked them or\n13 in response to my question? Would you do that, please?\n14 A. Yes.\n15 Q. Wouldn't you agree with me that the facts as laid out in\n16 your brief convey the notion that you learned of the Appellate\n17 Division report only after you received the juror note; true or\n18 false?\n19 A. I find that a difficult answer, question to answer true or\n20 false. I can see now how that might be the impression that is\n21 conveyed by the brief.\n22 Q. And that --\n23 A. That certainly was not our intention at the time. I\n24 certainly did not, we did not intend to create a misleading\n25 impression. Our focus at the time was trying to show that",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010084",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Edelstein",
      "Catherine Conrad",
      "DeRosa"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "Appellate Division"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "C2GFDAU3",
      "A-5801",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010084"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}