mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00013353.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "75",
    "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 75 of 262 1780 LC8Cmax3 Hesse - direct 1 So I think, with respect to the objection, we start with the record was made at or near the time that the call came in. So I think she's testified what she was instructed to do. MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Which included indicating a date and time of the call and the like? MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. In our view, that meets that prong of the business records exception. On that score, I would note, your Honor, this is now the second employee to testify that the instructions at the household were to take contemporaneous messages as they came in, in a message pad exactly like this. So there is now a foundation in the record to show that this was the practice of the household, these were the instructions the employees were given. Again, it's a spiral bound book, so we have a series of messages in sequential order with dates and times memorializing messages made. And the testimony has now been twice that that was the practice of the household and particular restrictions given by the defendant. MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, on that point, factually, if you look at these messages, it belies the statement just made, because Ms. Hesse's messages, for example, are pretty well maintained, but when you go through these messages, there are many multiples that are unsigned, undated, and don't fall SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013353",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 75 of 262 1780 LC8Cmax3 Hesse - direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 So I think, with respect to the objection, we start with the record was made at or near the time that the call came in. So I think she's testified what she was instructed to do. MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: Which included indicating a date and time of the call and the like? MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. In our view, that meets that prong of the business records exception. On that score, I would note, your Honor, this is now the second employee to testify that the instructions at the household were to take contemporaneous messages as they came in, in a message pad exactly like this. So there is now a foundation in the record to show that this was the practice of the household, these were the instructions the employees were given. Again, it's a spiral bound book, so we have a series of messages in sequential order with dates and times memorializing messages made. And the testimony has now been twice that that was the practice of the household and particular restrictions given by the defendant. MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, on that point, factually, if you look at these messages, it belies the statement just made, because Ms. Hesse's messages, for example, are pretty well maintained, but when you go through these messages, there are many multiples that are unsigned, undated, and don't fall",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013353",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MOE",
      "MR. PAGLIUCA",
      "Ms. Hesse"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "THE COURT"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "755",
      "DOJ-OGR-00013353"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}