mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00012102.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "82",
    "document_number": "745",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 82 of 264 488 LC1VMAX3 Jane - cross 1 MS. MODE: Your Honor, I'm not -- I take the Court at its word. I'm not familiar -- 2 3 THE COURT: I mean, that's what it says. I'll admit there may be some complications, but I'd like to know the government's position on that. 4 5 MS. MODE: Yes, your Honor. We'd be happy to take a quick look into it. 6 7 THE COURT: It will probably take more than a quick look. It's complicated. That case is in the context of the defense seeking to introduce civil litigation settlement. Is defense aware of this case? Anybody have knowledge? No. 8 9 10 11 Who reads Second Circuit cases? 12 13 In the context of the defense seeking to introduce, the rule was subsequently amended, there's been no intervening Second Circuit interpretation. The rule is amended because the government wanted some ability to introduce in some context civil settlement matters. So the rule has been changed now, by its terms, at least, not in the case of motive and bias, it does appear to apply in criminal settings. But I don't think that the amendment, which was not -- I don't think that amendment is sufficiently overruling of the Second Circuit decision for me not to be bound by that Second Circuit decision. But you'll, I'm sure, take a look at that issue. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MS. MODE: Yes, your Honor. 24 25 And just to widen the aperture of the issue, what SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00012102",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 82 of 264 488",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "LC1VMAX3 Jane - cross",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 MS. MODE: Your Honor, I'm not -- I take the Court at its word. I'm not familiar --",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3 THE COURT: I mean, that's what it says. I'll admit there may be some complications, but I'd like to know the government's position on that.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5 MS. MODE: Yes, your Honor. We'd be happy to take a quick look into it.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7 THE COURT: It will probably take more than a quick look. It's complicated. That case is in the context of the defense seeking to introduce civil litigation settlement. Is defense aware of this case? Anybody have knowledge? No.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8 9 10 11 Who reads Second Circuit cases?",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "13 In the context of the defense seeking to introduce, the rule was subsequently amended, there's been no intervening Second Circuit interpretation. The rule is amended because the government wanted some ability to introduce in some context civil settlement matters. So the rule has been changed now, by its terms, at least, not in the case of motive and bias, it does appear to apply in criminal settings. But I don't think that the amendment, which was not -- I don't think that amendment is sufficiently overruling of the Second Circuit decision for me not to be bound by that Second Circuit decision. But you'll, I'm sure, take a look at that issue.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MS. MODE: Yes, your Honor.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "24 25 And just to widen the aperture of the issue, what",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012102",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MODE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "745",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012102"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}