mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00013213.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "200",
    "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 200 of 264 1641 LC7Cmax6 Carolyn - cross against third parties. I think that's borne out by the substance of the document. Count One only talks about Jeffrey Epstein, the first defendant. Count Two only talks about Sarah Kellen, the second defendant. I think that that makes sense and it wouldn't be expected that Ghislaine Maxwell or anyone else would be included in allegations in a complaint against those two. More broadly, I think defense counsel has already gotten the point that he wants to make across to the jury. He has made very, very clear, repeatedly, that this witness sued Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen and not Ghislaine Maxwell. They have now heard that she has filed multiple court documents that are lengthy in which the defendant's name is not mentioned. So he has everything he needs to make his impeachment point. At this point, it's cumulative and risks 403 prejudice and confusion of the issues, and a sideshow about a 2009 lawsuit to put in the document itself. He has everything he needs. THE COURT: I think that he has everything he needs goes to the relevance of the contention that the exclusion is there. MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think that the point is that she wasn't included as a defendant. I don't think that it would be expected, especially in a document -- THE COURT: I think it's a redirect point, frankly, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013213",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 200 of 264 1641 LC7Cmax6 Carolyn - cross",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "against third parties. I think that's borne out by the substance of the document. Count One only talks about Jeffrey Epstein, the first defendant. Count Two only talks about Sarah Kellen, the second defendant. I think that that makes sense and it wouldn't be expected that Ghislaine Maxwell or anyone else would be included in allegations in a complaint against those two. More broadly, I think defense counsel has already gotten the point that he wants to make across to the jury. He has made very, very clear, repeatedly, that this witness sued Jeffrey Epstein and Sarah Kellen and not Ghislaine Maxwell. They have now heard that she has filed multiple court documents that are lengthy in which the defendant's name is not mentioned. So he has everything he needs to make his impeachment point. At this point, it's cumulative and risks 403 prejudice and confusion of the issues, and a sideshow about a 2009 lawsuit to put in the document itself. He has everything he needs.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "THE COURT: I think that he has everything he needs goes to the relevance of the contention that the exclusion is there.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think that the point is that she wasn't included as a defendant. I don't think that it would be expected, especially in a document --",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "THE COURT: I think it's a redirect point, frankly,",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013213",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Sarah Kellen",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "MS. COMEY"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "2009"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "753",
      "DOJ-OGR-00013213"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}