mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00013550.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "document_number": "757",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 757 Filed 08/10/22 Page 9 of 49 1982 LC9VMAXT\n1 THE COURT: Let's take that example, Mr. Pagliuca.\n2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, the problem, I think, is\n3 that it is simply highlighting a specific piece of evidence;\n4 that this is summation, essentially, and not witness testimony.\n5 The witness has no personal knowledge of the phone calls. The\n6 witness is simply comparing this to that, which is what should\n7 be done in summation or should have been done with the witness\n8 who actually was the testifying witness with the exhibit.\n9\n10 Ms. Hesse, for example. You have that message pad? Yes.\n11 Compare that message pad with this particular record. Are\n12 those the same phone numbers? I suppose that could happen.\n13 Or with Carolyn, could have been asked, Is that your\n14 phone number? Does that match the record?\n15 This is simply an FBI agent who's going to take those\n16 pieces of evidence selectively and then talk about them; this\n17 matches this, this matches that. I don't believe that's\n18 appropriate under 1006, which is, you know, the rule that\n19 allows for summary exhibits, for example, but does not allow\n20 for summary testimony of things that have already been admitted\n21 into evidence.\n22 Certainly in the government's closing argument they\n23 can do this and they can make whatever arguments they want.\n24 But this is simply a closing argument through a summary witness\n25 in the middle of a trial before a very long break, and I just\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013550",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 757 Filed 08/10/22 Page 9 of 49 1982 LC9VMAXT",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 THE COURT: Let's take that example, Mr. Pagliuca.\n2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, the problem, I think, is\n3 that it is simply highlighting a specific piece of evidence;\n4 that this is summation, essentially, and not witness testimony.\n5 The witness has no personal knowledge of the phone calls. The\n6 witness is simply comparing this to that, which is what should\n7 be done in summation or should have been done with the witness\n8 who actually was the testifying witness with the exhibit.\n9\n10 Ms. Hesse, for example. You have that message pad? Yes.\n11 Compare that message pad with this particular record. Are\n12 those the same phone numbers? I suppose that could happen.\n13 Or with Carolyn, could have been asked, Is that your\n14 phone number? Does that match the record?\n15 This is simply an FBI agent who's going to take those\n16 pieces of evidence selectively and then talk about them; this\n17 matches this, this matches that. I don't believe that's\n18 appropriate under 1006, which is, you know, the rule that\n19 allows for summary exhibits, for example, but does not allow\n20 for summary testimony of things that have already been admitted\n21 into evidence.\n22 Certainly in the government's closing argument they\n23 can do this and they can make whatever arguments they want.\n24 But this is simply a closing argument through a summary witness\n25 in the middle of a trial before a very long break, and I just",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013550",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Pagliuca",
      "Ms. Hesse",
      "Carolyn"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "757",
      "1006",
      "DOJ-OGR-00013550"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}