mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00013002.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "251",
    "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 251 of 261 1412 LC6Cmax7 Meder - direct to is 309, and the second is someone who will -- the government will contend is a victim in this case, though not testifying, number 332. THE COURT: 309. MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. 309 depicts the witness who testified earlier today as Kate. The jury has met her. This is a photograph of that same person. Again, to the extent the defense has the native file, which we produced in discovery, to the extent they wish to make any arguments about timeframes or metadata, they're free to do so, but a photograph of this person is certainly relevant given the context. With respect to Government Exhibit 332, your Honor, if I could just have one moment. THE COURT: Okay. MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. I just wanted to confirm. With respect to Government Exhibit 332, a cropped version of that photograph which shows only that individual's face has already been offered in evidence and identified by another witness as that individual. THE COURT: So what's the relevance of a duplicate photo? MS. MOE: Your Honor, it's not a duplicate photograph. The photograph that we used for identification purposes was a cropped photograph of just the face. The full photograph is a SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013002",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 251 of 261 1412 LC6Cmax7 Meder - direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "to is 309, and the second is someone who will -- the government will contend is a victim in this case, though not testifying, number 332. THE COURT: 309. MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. 309 depicts the witness who testified earlier today as Kate. The jury has met her. This is a photograph of that same person. Again, to the extent the defense has the native file, which we produced in discovery, to the extent they wish to make any arguments about timeframes or metadata, they're free to do so, but a photograph of this person is certainly relevant given the context. With respect to Government Exhibit 332, your Honor, if I could just have one moment. THE COURT: Okay. MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. I just wanted to confirm. With respect to Government Exhibit 332, a cropped version of that photograph which shows only that individual's face has already been offered in evidence and identified by another witness as that individual. THE COURT: So what's the relevance of a duplicate photo? MS. MOE: Your Honor, it's not a duplicate photograph. The photograph that we used for identification purposes was a cropped photograph of just the face. The full photograph is a",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013002",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Kate",
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "751",
      "309",
      "332",
      "DOJ-OGR-00013002"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}