mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00012849.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "98",
    "document_number": "751",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 98 of 261 1259\nLC6Cmax3 Kate - cross\n1 (At the sidebar)\n2 MS. POMERANTZ: The government is concerned about this line of questioning. She's asking a series of questions about her romantic history. It seems unduly invasive.\n3 THE COURT: Just a moment. We had an earlier sidebar. I permitted her to ask questions based on the declaration regarding someone who said she planted drugs on the person that she's now asking a question about. So, how is the objection consistent with that ruling?\n4 MS. POMERANTZ: I understand that ruling, your Honor -- my understanding is I frankly didn't know that's where it was going, but it's also my concern is that it's been a series of questions that have just been basically a litany of questions --\n5 THE COURT: Counsel, when you have an objection, I rule on it. A series of questions objections doesn't fly. Please bear in mind my rulings, that that is why we do it at the sidebar, that's why the jury had a 45-minute break. I don't need a sidebar every time a question that I've approved is asked.\n6 (Continued on next page)\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00012849",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 98 of 261 1259",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "LC6Cmax3 Kate - cross",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(At the sidebar)\nMS. POMERANTZ: The government is concerned about this line of questioning. She's asking a series of questions about her romantic history. It seems unduly invasive.\nTHE COURT: Just a moment. We had an earlier sidebar. I permitted her to ask questions based on the declaration regarding someone who said she planted drugs on the person that she's now asking a question about. So, how is the objection consistent with that ruling?\nMS. POMERANTZ: I understand that ruling, your Honor -- my understanding is I frankly didn't know that's where it was going, but it's also my concern is that it's been a series of questions that have just been basically a litany of questions --\nTHE COURT: Counsel, when you have an objection, I rule on it. A series of questions objections doesn't fly. Please bear in mind my rulings, that that is why we do it at the sidebar, that's why the jury had a 45-minute break. I don't need a sidebar every time a question that I've approved is asked.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(Continued on next page)",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012849",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. POMERANTZ"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "751",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012849"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}