mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014139.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "33",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 33 of 197 2574\nLCFCmax1\n1 MR. EVERDELL: Phone records, geo location information, things like that.\n2\n3 MR. ROHRBACH: This implicates at least two of the Court's rulings on the subject. One is that the defense can't elicit direct testimony about investigative steps that the government did or did not take. And the other is defense can't elicit direct testimony about the thoroughness of the government's investigation. As your Honor ruled, they can say in their closing there is no email evidence before you that goes to defendant's guilt or innocence, but they can't elicit testimony from the special agent, the government's case agent about the steps the government did or did not take or why the government did or did not take them and what that says about the thoroughness of the government's investigation.\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I believe I am allowed to comment on the absence of evidence. I'm allowed to put that in through a witness if I choose and this is the witness to do it.\n16\n17\n18 THE COURT: Not inconsistent with my ruling.\n19 MR. EVERDELL: I understand that, your Honor.\n20 THE COURT: I'll pull it up and look again, but with respect to the ability to cross examine witnesses put on to show the thoroughness of the investigation, you can cross on the failure to do that. The absence of evidence is arguments that you can make comments on, of course, and seek the jury to conclude from it what it likes in the course of its\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014139",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 33 of 197 2574",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LCFCmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 MR. EVERDELL: Phone records, geo location information, things like that.\n2\n3 MR. ROHRBACH: This implicates at least two of the Court's rulings on the subject. One is that the defense can't elicit direct testimony about investigative steps that the government did or did not take. And the other is defense can't elicit direct testimony about the thoroughness of the government's investigation. As your Honor ruled, they can say in their closing there is no email evidence before you that goes to defendant's guilt or innocence, but they can't elicit testimony from the special agent, the government's case agent about the steps the government did or did not take or why the government did or did not take them and what that says about the thoroughness of the government's investigation.\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I believe I am allowed to comment on the absence of evidence. I'm allowed to put that in through a witness if I choose and this is the witness to do it.\n16\n17\n18 THE COURT: Not inconsistent with my ruling.\n19 MR. EVERDELL: I understand that, your Honor.\n20 THE COURT: I'll pull it up and look again, but with respect to the ability to cross examine witnesses put on to show the thoroughness of the investigation, you can cross on the failure to do that. The absence of evidence is arguments that you can make comments on, of course, and seek the jury to conclude from it what it likes in the course of its\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014139",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "MR. ROHRBACH"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014139"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}