mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003081.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "147",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 147 of 239\nto determine the meaning that a defendant assigns to a specific question.\" Id.; see, e.g. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 307 (2d Cir. 2018).47\nA narrow exception arises when language in a question is so \"fundamentally ambiguous\" that a Court can conclude, as a matter of law, that a perjury count cannot stand. Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375. A question is \"fundamentally ambiguous\" when \"it is not a phrase with a meaning about which [people] of ordinary intellect could agree, nor one which could be used with mutual understanding by a questioner and answerer unless it were defined at the time it were sought and offered as testimony.\" Id. at 375 (internal quotation marks omitted). In such a case, the \"answers associated with the questions posed may be insufficient as a matter of law to support the perjury conviction.\" United States v. Markiewicz, 978 F.2d 786, 808 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375). For instance, in Lighte, a case involving post-conviction appellate review, the Court found that a question was fundamentally ambiguous because it used the word \"'you' without indication that, unlike the prior two questions, the appellant was now being questioned in his role as trustee.\" 782 F.2d at 376. \"[F]undamental ambiguity,\" however, \"is the exception, not the rule.\" United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Farmer, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer \"might generate a number of different interpretations.\" Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) (\"Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence demonstrates the defendant understood the question in context and gave a knowingly false answer.\") \"If, in the\n47 The Second Circuit analyzes general principles of perjury similarly under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 and another perjury statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1621, see Lighte, 782 F.3d at 372, and it has assumed without deciding that those standards also apply to offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), see United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 307 n.15 (2d Cir. 2018).\n120\nDOJ-OGR-00003081",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 147 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "to determine the meaning that a defendant assigns to a specific question.\" Id.; see, e.g. United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 307 (2d Cir. 2018).47\nA narrow exception arises when language in a question is so \"fundamentally ambiguous\" that a Court can conclude, as a matter of law, that a perjury count cannot stand. Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375. A question is \"fundamentally ambiguous\" when \"it is not a phrase with a meaning about which [people] of ordinary intellect could agree, nor one which could be used with mutual understanding by a questioner and answerer unless it were defined at the time it were sought and offered as testimony.\" Id. at 375 (internal quotation marks omitted). In such a case, the \"answers associated with the questions posed may be insufficient as a matter of law to support the perjury conviction.\" United States v. Markiewicz, 978 F.2d 786, 808 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375). For instance, in Lighte, a case involving post-conviction appellate review, the Court found that a question was fundamentally ambiguous because it used the word \"'you' without indication that, unlike the prior two questions, the appellant was now being questioned in his role as trustee.\" 782 F.2d at 376. \"[F]undamental ambiguity,\" however, \"is the exception, not the rule.\" United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Farmer, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer \"might generate a number of different interpretations.\" Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) (\"Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence demonstrates the defendant understood the question in context and gave a knowingly false answer.\") \"If, in the",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "47 The Second Circuit analyzes general principles of perjury similarly under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 and another perjury statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1621, see Lighte, 782 F.3d at 372, and it has assumed without deciding that those standards also apply to offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), see United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287, 307 n.15 (2d Cir. 2018).",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "120",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003081",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "2018",
      "1992",
      "1998",
      "2012",
      "2011"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "204",
      "147",
      "239",
      "898 F.3d 287",
      "782 F.2d 375",
      "978 F.2d 786",
      "669 F.3d 401",
      "137 F.3d 1265",
      "671 F.3d 1173",
      "18 U.S.C. § 1623",
      "18 U.S.C. § 1621",
      "18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003081"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a perjury case, with references to various legal precedents and statutes. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}