mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011998.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "226",
    "document_number": "743",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 743 Filed 08/10/22 Page 226 of 247 358 LBUVMAX6 Jane - direct the truth or not, which is precisely why I granted the Rule 17 subpoena and, I suspect, in the opening raised this issue precisely. So whether it's true or not, the question is what is her understanding. So if the question is phrased that way, I will overrule the objection. MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. In fact, that is exactly how I phrased that question for that reason. MS. MENNINGER: I still think it's a legal conclusion, your Honor, asking someone, you know, what is the effect of a contract or what is -- how can a contract be dissolved. It's just not within the ken of a person who is not -- THE COURT: I can give a limiting instruction that testimony is not being offered for -- as a legal instruction, but for the witness's understanding. MS. MENNINGER: Sure. That would be better -- THE COURT: Any objection? MS. MOE: No, your Honor. I think this is very commonplace, it happens all the time. For example, when cooperators testify about their understanding of whether, for example, a verdict in a case affects their cooperation agreement with the government, I don't think there's a limiting instruction; because, again, the question is about this person's understanding. I can make that very clear when I ask the question. It's directly responsive to defense arguments about whether this witness has a motive to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011998",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 743 Filed 08/10/22 Page 226 of 247 358 LBUVMAX6 Jane - direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the truth or not, which is precisely why I granted the Rule 17 subpoena and, I suspect, in the opening raised this issue precisely. So whether it's true or not, the question is what is her understanding. So if the question is phrased that way, I will overrule the objection. MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. In fact, that is exactly how I phrased that question for that reason. MS. MENNINGER: I still think it's a legal conclusion, your Honor, asking someone, you know, what is the effect of a contract or what is -- how can a contract be dissolved. It's just not within the ken of a person who is not -- THE COURT: I can give a limiting instruction that testimony is not being offered for -- as a legal instruction, but for the witness's understanding. MS. MENNINGER: Sure. That would be better -- THE COURT: Any objection? MS. MOE: No, your Honor. I think this is very commonplace, it happens all the time. For example, when cooperators testify about their understanding of whether, for example, a verdict in a case affects their cooperation agreement with the government, I don't think there's a limiting instruction; because, again, the question is about this person's understanding. I can make that very clear when I ask the question. It's directly responsive to defense arguments about whether this witness has a motive to",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011998",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MOE",
      "MS. MENNINGER"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "743",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011998"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}