mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00013212.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "199",
    "document_number": "753",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 199 of 264 1640 LC7Cmax6 Carolyn - cross whole thing. Let me just ask. If there were, for example, a paragraph that said these are some of the facts of what occurred, but not all of them, would your omission theory work to get everything in? MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. THE COURT: If there is a few discrepancies? MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. THE COURT: Do you have a case for that proposition? I mean, it's really a factual question whether there is a reasonable inference available from which the jury could conclude that there is an inconsistency by testifying to one thing to inclusion of facts now that were not included previously. MR. PAGLIUCA: I think that's true and it's under the circumstances -- I mean the case law, I can -- I need to pull up my computer to give you the cite here, your Honor, but I'll do that now. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Comey. MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor. I think the theory of omission only works where one would expect that the specific facts that are omitted would be included in the particular statement. This is a lawsuit brought against two defendants and it is containing the core allegations against those two defendants. One would not expect that to include allegations SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013212",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 199 of 264 1640 LC7Cmax6 Carolyn - cross",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "whole thing. Let me just ask. If there were, for example, a paragraph that said these are some of the facts of what occurred, but not all of them, would your omission theory work to get everything in? MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. THE COURT: If there is a few discrepancies? MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. THE COURT: Do you have a case for that proposition? I mean, it's really a factual question whether there is a reasonable inference available from which the jury could conclude that there is an inconsistency by testifying to one thing to inclusion of facts now that were not included previously. MR. PAGLIUCA: I think that's true and it's under the circumstances -- I mean the case law, I can -- I need to pull up my computer to give you the cite here, your Honor, but I'll do that now. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Comey. MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor. I think the theory of omission only works where one would expect that the specific facts that are omitted would be included in the particular statement. This is a lawsuit brought against two defendants and it is containing the core allegations against those two defendants. One would not expect that to include allegations",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013212",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. PAGLIUCA",
      "MS. COMEY"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "753",
      "DOJ-OGR-00013212"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}