mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00012353.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "68",
    "document_number": "747",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 747 Filed 08/10/22 Page 68 of 228 744 LC2VMAX2 Rocchio - Direct 1 And then I believe I had returned to questions about that topic. 2 3 So I just wanted to note that for your Honor that we -- when I asked that question, I believe that it was different from the question -- the opinion that your Honor had excluded. 4 5 6 Your Honor, there is a distinction between the presence of a third party and whose sexual gratification the grooming is for; that that is part and parcel of the larger topic of grooming and attachment. 7 8 9 I'm not trying to relitigate it, your Honor -- 10 THE COURT: Oh, you're not? 11 MS. POMERANTZ: Well, if your Honor would permit me -- 12 13 THE COURT: Looking at the transcript, I think it's consistent with my ruling. I understand you're saying you didn't intentionally -- the point you're making is you didn't intentionally violate my ruling. 14 15 16 MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor. 17 18 THE COURT: Okay. And I see the portion of the transcript. I continue to think the testimony regarding whether strategies that she's testifying about can be utilized for the sexual gratification of the person doing the grooming we explored in the Daubert context specifically with me asking whether she talked about -- whether there was literature comparable to the pimp-prostitute context in which grooming 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00012353",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 747 Filed 08/10/22 Page 68 of 228 744 LC2VMAX2 Rocchio - Direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 And then I believe I had returned to questions about that topic. 2 topic. 3 So I just wanted to note that for your Honor that we -- when I asked that question, I believe that it was different from the question -- the opinion that your Honor had excluded. 4 5 6 Your Honor, there is a distinction between the presence of a third party and whose sexual gratification the grooming is for; that that is part and parcel of the larger topic of grooming and attachment. 7 8 9 I'm not trying to relitigate it, your Honor -- 10 THE COURT: Oh, you're not? 11 MS. POMERANTZ: Well, if your Honor would permit me -- 12 13 THE COURT: Looking at the transcript, I think it's consistent with my ruling. I understand you're saying you didn't intentionally -- the point you're making is you didn't intentionally violate my ruling. 14 15 16 MS. POMERANTZ: Yes, your Honor. 17 18 THE COURT: Okay. And I see the portion of the transcript. I continue to think the testimony regarding whether strategies that she's testifying about can be utilized for the sexual gratification of the person doing the grooming we explored in the Daubert context specifically with me asking whether she talked about -- whether there was literature comparable to the pimp-prostitute context in which grooming 19 20 21 22 23 24 25",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012353",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. POMERANTZ"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "747",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012353"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}