mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00013285.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "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 7 of 262 1712 LC8Cmax1\n\n1 THE COURT: Yes, that's on my to-do list today, this\n2 morning, which is to give you my view of the limiting\n3 instruction, which I can do now.\n4 So we last talked about this at the November 23rd\n5 conference, and I think the defense agreed with the limiting\n6 instruction. The government had suggested changes, which I\n7 rejected, but I understood the government's position that it\n8 wasn't fully accurate as stated, and that's because of\n9 complications around New Mexico law, potentially.\n10 If we need to go into further issues that implicate 412,\n11 we can do sidebar, but I think for purposes of the limiting\n12 instruction, here's my thinking, and I may not need you to\n13 react immediately to it unless you want to, but you can\n14 consider it and think about it.\n15 I think an appropriate limiting instruction would be:\n16 \"I anticipate that you'll hear testimony from the next witness\n17 about sexual conduct that she said she had with Mr. Epstein in\n18 New Mexico. I instruct you that the sexual conduct she says\n19 occurred with Mr. Epstein in New Mexico was not, quote, \"illegal\n20 sexual activity,\" end quote, as the government has charged in\n21 the indictment.\n22 \"I'll give you more instructions on the legal term,\n23 illegal sexual activity, at the end of the case. However, to\n24 the extent you conclude that her testimony is relevant to the\n25 issues before you, you may consider it, but you may not\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00013285",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 7 of 262 1712 LC8Cmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "THE COURT: Yes, that's on my to-do list today, this morning, which is to give you my view of the limiting instruction, which I can do now. So we last talked about this at the November 23rd conference, and I think the defense agreed with the limiting instruction. The government had suggested changes, which I rejected, but I understood the government's position that it wasn't fully accurate as stated, and that's because of complications around New Mexico law, potentially. If we need to go into further issues that implicate 412, we can do sidebar, but I think for purposes of the limiting instruction, here's my thinking, and I may not need you to react immediately to it unless you want to, but you can consider it and think about it. I think an appropriate limiting instruction would be: \"I anticipate that you'll hear testimony from the next witness about sexual conduct that she said she had with Mr. Epstein in New Mexico. I instruct you that the sexual conduct she says occurred with Mr. Epstein in New Mexico was not, quote, \"illegal sexual activity,\" end quote, as the government has charged in the indictment. \"I'll give you more instructions on the legal term, illegal sexual activity, at the end of the case. However, to the extent you conclude that her testimony is relevant to the issues before you, you may consider it, but you may not",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013285",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New Mexico"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "November 23rd",
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "755",
      "412",
      "DOJ-OGR-00013285"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}