mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008329.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "19",
    "document_number": "536",
    "date": "12/10/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 536 Filed 12/10/21 Page 19 of 43 19 LBNAMAXTps for the truth, that it is being, as I understand it, being offered for the effect on the listener, and so really there is -- it's a potential relevance issue and not a hearsay issue. I think this needs to play out at trial, but tell me if anybody disagrees with that. MS. COMEY: We agree, your Honor. MR. PAGLIUCA: Agreed. THE COURT: And then the other one, the government is seeking admission pursuant to 801(d)(2)(E), and in question is whether the statement was made during the course of and in furtherance of that conspiracy. I don't think I have enough to answer that before me. So I can either hear more now or let it play out at trial. MS. COMEY: I think it should play out at trial, your Honor. MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. I agree, your Honor. THE COURT: Great. Thank you. All right. That takes care of that. Next are the four additional individuals that the defense disclosed as potential experts. So we've got Kelso and Lopez, who, it strikes me, are primarily potentially fact witnesses and not expert witnesses, with the exception of that Kelso tes -- so I think first, let's see if we get agreement on: Lopez would be fact testimony, correct? MR. ROHRBACH: That's the government's understanding, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00008329",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 536 Filed 12/10/21 Page 19 of 43 19 LBNAMAXTps",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "for the truth, that it is being, as I understand it, being offered for the effect on the listener, and so really there is -- it's a potential relevance issue and not a hearsay issue. I think this needs to play out at trial, but tell me if anybody disagrees with that. MS. COMEY: We agree, your Honor. MR. PAGLIUCA: Agreed. THE COURT: And then the other one, the government is seeking admission pursuant to 801(d)(2)(E), and in question is whether the statement was made during the course of and in furtherance of that conspiracy. I don't think I have enough to answer that before me. So I can either hear more now or let it play out at trial. MS. COMEY: I think it should play out at trial, your Honor. MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. I agree, your Honor. THE COURT: Great. Thank you. All right. That takes care of that. Next are the four additional individuals that the defense disclosed as potential experts. So we've got Kelso and Lopez, who, it strikes me, are primarily potentially fact witnesses and not expert witnesses, with the exception of that Kelso tes -- so I think first, let's see if we get agreement on: Lopez would be fact testimony, correct? MR. ROHRBACH: That's the government's understanding,",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008329",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. COMEY",
      "MR. PAGLIUCA",
      "MR. ROHRBACH",
      "Kelso",
      "Lopez"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "12/10/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 536",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008329"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}