mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00013555.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "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 14 of 49 1987 LC9VMAXT\n1 Honor. This is classically what someone would do in a closing argument. You can put this in a Power Point and put up a screen that shows this, and then put up a screen that shows that, and then make an argument about it.\n2 And if they wanted to elicit this testimony, it should have been done, I believe, with a witness that then could be cross-examined substantively about what was being discussed.\n3 This witness, Mr. -- if I'm saying it correctly, Mr. Buscemi, can't be cross-examined substantively about anything; all he's going to be able to say would be, I looked at this, and I looked at that, and I looked at this, I looked at that, and those are the exhibits.\n4 So I guess I'm a little confused about the process, where one would just look at a jury and say, Look at this and then look at that. And I don't understand why that isn't, sort of, impermissibly highlighting certain pieces of evidence. And then, you know, am I allowed to get up and say, Why don't you look at this and why don't you look at that? It just seems rather awkward to me to be doing it in that fashion.\n5 MS. MOE: Your Honor, that's why we propose doing this with a witness, to avoid any, sort of, awkwardness. But I don't understand the objection to publishing items that are in evidence that the jury has not yet seen. Again, our hope was for this to be very streamlined; but I understand the Court's concerns.\n6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013555",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 757 Filed 08/10/22 Page 14 of 49 1987 LC9VMAXT",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Honor. This is classically what someone would do in a closing argument. You can put this in a Power Point and put up a screen that shows this, and then put up a screen that shows that, and then make an argument about it.\n2 And if they wanted to elicit this testimony, it should have been done, I believe, with a witness that then could be cross-examined substantively about what was being discussed.\n3 This witness, Mr. -- if I'm saying it correctly, Mr. Buscemi, can't be cross-examined substantively about anything; all he's going to be able to say would be, I looked at this, and I looked at that, and I looked at this, I looked at that, and those are the exhibits.\n4 So I guess I'm a little confused about the process, where one would just look at a jury and say, Look at this and then look at that. And I don't understand why that isn't, sort of, impermissibly highlighting certain pieces of evidence. And then, you know, am I allowed to get up and say, Why don't you look at this and why don't you look at that? It just seems rather awkward to me to be doing it in that fashion.\n5 MS. MOE: Your Honor, that's why we propose doing this with a witness, to avoid any, sort of, awkwardness. But I don't understand the objection to publishing items that are in evidence that the jury has not yet seen. Again, our hope was for this to be very streamlined; but I understand the Court's concerns.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013555",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Buscemi",
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "757",
      "DOJ-OGR-00013555"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}