mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00013595.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "759",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 4 of 267 2031 LCACmax1 issues. And that's how I understood this was being addressed. THE COURT: Well, you want all of 52 as an exhibit for the appellate record, but you don't want the jury to get all of 52? MR. PAGLIUCA: I think there are a couple of problems. Certainly, we didn't cross examine on the entirety of 52, because I understood that 52, in its entirety, was not being admitted. So I think that's problem number 1. There are also problems, I think, simply with relevance related to the rest of the exhibit, and there were discrete portions that the government said the government was contending were relevant and not the other portions. So the book is however many pages it is, but I think it's outside of what was appropriate for cross examination at the time. THE COURT: My clerk is sending me the portion of the transcript. I can't tell if you're in disagreement yet or not, Ms. Moe. MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I think the issue is more that because the weight and authenticity of this exhibit has now been put in dispute, I don't know how the jurors would evaluate the testimony about its contents, the format, in order to evaluate its authenticity or weight without the object itself. That's what we wanted to clarify about whether that would be part of the record. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013595",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 4 of 267 2031 LCACmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "issues. And that's how I understood this was being addressed. THE COURT: Well, you want all of 52 as an exhibit for the appellate record, but you don't want the jury to get all of 52? MR. PAGLIUCA: I think there are a couple of problems. Certainly, we didn't cross examine on the entirety of 52, because I understood that 52, in its entirety, was not being admitted. So I think that's problem number 1. There are also problems, I think, simply with relevance related to the rest of the exhibit, and there were discrete portions that the government said the government was contending were relevant and not the other portions. So the book is however many pages it is, but I think it's outside of what was appropriate for cross examination at the time. THE COURT: My clerk is sending me the portion of the transcript. I can't tell if you're in disagreement yet or not, Ms. Moe. MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I think the issue is more that because the weight and authenticity of this exhibit has now been put in dispute, I don't know how the jurors would evaluate the testimony about its contents, the format, in order to evaluate its authenticity or weight without the object itself. That's what we wanted to clarify about whether that would be part of the record.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013595",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. PAGLIUCA",
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "759",
      "DOJ-OGR-00013595"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}