mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00013599.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "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 8 of 267 2035 LCACmax1\n\n1 about a photograph of this defendant -- of this person which is\n2 the same as the photograph the defense has already offered and\n3 connecting that up with her date of birth, which is information\n4 that is not a mystery to the defense, they've been in\n5 possession of that information for a long time now through\n6 discovery. So we're both on equal footing. We promptly\n7 complied with our discovery obligations. There is no surprise\n8 in the substance of this testimony or the exhibit.\n9\n10 So we would like to correct the record before the jury\n11 now because there is no basis to suggest to this jury that the\n12 person in the 1990s flights is Jane. That is misleading and we\n13 would like to clarify that today.\n14\n15 MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, if the Court is going to\n16 allow it on rebuttal, it makes sense to do it now. I don't see\n17 why we would need to delay the witness. So if the Court is\n18 going to allow it, I would just --\n19\n20 THE COURT: I'll allow it. It is rebuttal. The\n21 relevance is that the defense has suggested that, with both\n22 pilot witnesses, that the person they either remember to have\n23 the first name -- same first name as Jane or listed on\n24 Mr. Rodgers' log as having the same first name as Jane wasn't,\n25 in fact, Jane.\n26\n27 I understand the government's proffer to be that they\n28 have evidence that shows this other person who has the same\n29 first name as Jane would not have been -- whose age and also\n30\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00013599",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 8 of 267 2035 LCACmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013599",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "about a photograph of this defendant -- of this person which is the same as the photograph the defense has already offered and connecting that up with her date of birth, which is information that is not a mystery to the defense, they've been in possession of that information for a long time now through discovery. So we're both on equal footing. We promptly complied with our discovery obligations. There is no surprise in the substance of this testimony or the exhibit. So we would like to correct the record before the jury now because there is no basis to suggest to this jury that the person in the 1990s flights is Jane. That is misleading and we would like to clarify that today. MR. PAGLIUCA: Your Honor, if the Court is going to allow it on rebuttal, it makes sense to do it now. I don't see why we would need to delay the witness. So if the Court is going to allow it, I would just -- THE COURT: I'll allow it. It is rebuttal. The relevance is that the defense has suggested that, with both pilot witnesses, that the person they either remember to have the first name -- same first name as Jane or listed on Mr. Rodgers' log as having the same first name as Jane wasn't, in fact, Jane. I understand the government's proffer to be that they have evidence that shows this other person who has the same first name as Jane would not have been -- whose age and also",
      "position": "main content"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Mr. Rodgers",
      "Mr. Pagliuca"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "759",
      "DOJ-OGR-00013599"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}