mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00012880.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "129",
    "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 129 of 261 1290 LC6VMAX4\n\n1 THE COURT: Well, I would permit it as cumulative if\n2 all we're doing is showing the jury that emails happened on\n3 these dates.\n4 MS. POMERANTZ: I just want to make sure I understand,\n5 your Honor. Would all of the substance of the emails be\n6 redacted?\n7 THE COURT: That's the proposition.\n8 MS. POMERANTZ: And what about the subject lines?\n9 MS. STERNHEIM: The subject lines would not be --\n10 well, the sender and recipient would not be hearsay. The date\n11 would not be hearsay.\n12 THE COURT: Right. But the subject line would be.\n13 Okay. So with the content and the subject matter\n14 redacted, I'll let the dates in. And who's emailing it would\n15 have to be sealed because it identifies the witness by her true\n16 identity.\n17 MS. POMERANTZ: Okay, your Honor. Thank you.\n18 THE COURT: Okay. So, Ms. Sternheim, your team will\n19 prepare a redacted -- I'm sorry, I lost the number, K -- what\n20 was the defendant's mark?\n21 MS. STERNHEIM: K-8.\n22 And if I may just supplement the record for a moment.\n23 THE COURT: Sure.\n24 MS. STERNHEIM: If it is not being offered for the\n25 truth, why can't it come in with a limiting instruction? Other\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00012880",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 129 of 261 1290 LC6VMAX4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 THE COURT: Well, I would permit it as cumulative if\n2 all we're doing is showing the jury that emails happened on\n3 these dates.\n4 MS. POMERANTZ: I just want to make sure I understand,\n5 your Honor. Would all of the substance of the emails be\n6 redacted?\n7 THE COURT: That's the proposition.\n8 MS. POMERANTZ: And what about the subject lines?\n9 MS. STERNHEIM: The subject lines would not be --\n10 well, the sender and recipient would not be hearsay. The date\n11 would not be hearsay.\n12 THE COURT: Right. But the subject line would be.\n13 Okay. So with the content and the subject matter\n14 redacted, I'll let the dates in. And who's emailing it would\n15 have to be sealed because it identifies the witness by her true\n16 identity.\n17 MS. POMERANTZ: Okay, your Honor. Thank you.\n18 THE COURT: Okay. So, Ms. Sternheim, your team will\n19 prepare a redacted -- I'm sorry, I lost the number, K -- what\n20 was the defendant's mark?\n21 MS. STERNHEIM: K-8.\n22 And if I may just supplement the record for a moment.\n23 THE COURT: Sure.\n24 MS. STERNHEIM: If it is not being offered for the\n25 truth, why can't it come in with a limiting instruction? Other",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012880",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. POMERANTZ",
      "MS. STERNHEIM"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "751",
      "K-8",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012880"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document is a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}