mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00013283.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "755",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 5 of 262 1710 LC8Cmax1 about whether they're going to recall Jane. I just want to make sure I'm understanding -- THE COURT: Sounds like that. MS. MENNINGER: That's correct. MR. ROHRBACH: -- defense's position. So I guess we would just repeat, your Honor, that the only issue for which Jane is subject to recall is the issue of the prior consistent statement and not the broader question of her contacts -- MS. MENNINGER: If she's had contact with her younger brother, who is under our subpoena, that might be fair game, your Honor. In my mind, she's violated the sequestration order. THE COURT: As I indicated yesterday, before the government withdraw Brian, I thought that was unlikely to be my conclusion. I don't have any different basis for coming to a different conclusion, unless we learn something substantial, but, again, there was no order in place, I don't think. I didn't enter one directing witnesses not to speak to each other. It is certainly not a good practice for reasons that have become apparent. And he didn't come into the courtroom, which is what the text of 6/15 indicates. I hypothesized whether someone giving him a transcript of the proceeding would be, if not a violation of the letter, a violation of the spirit. There is no contention as to that. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013283",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 5 of 262 1710 LC8Cmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "about whether they're going to recall Jane. I just want to make sure I'm understanding -- THE COURT: Sounds like that. MS. MENNINGER: That's correct. MR. ROHRBACH: -- defense's position. So I guess we would just repeat, your Honor, that the only issue for which Jane is subject to recall is the issue of the prior consistent statement and not the broader question of her contacts -- MS. MENNINGER: If she's had contact with her younger brother, who is under our subpoena, that might be fair game, your Honor. In my mind, she's violated the sequestration order. THE COURT: As I indicated yesterday, before the government withdraw Brian, I thought that was unlikely to be my conclusion. I don't have any different basis for coming to a different conclusion, unless we learn something substantial, but, again, there was no order in place, I don't think. I didn't enter one directing witnesses not to speak to each other. It is certainly not a good practice for reasons that have become apparent. And he didn't come into the courtroom, which is what the text of 6/15 indicates. I hypothesized whether someone giving him a transcript of the proceeding would be, if not a violation of the letter, a violation of the spirit. There is no contention as to that.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013283",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Brian",
      "MS. MENNINGER",
      "MR. ROHRBACH"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "6/15"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "755",
      "DOJ-OGR-00013283"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}