mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014145.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "39",
    "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 39 of 197 2580 LCHVMAX2\n\n1 THE COURT: How about this: I'll let you ask the agent -- I suppose I'll hear from the government.\n2\n3 What is the time period of the allegations that she investigated?\n4\n5 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think that the investigation that this agent was the case agent for was much broader than\n6 the charges here. And so it could lead to avenues that are not appropriate for this trial and that are irrelevant to this\n7 trial. And I think that your Honor's pretrial ruling was crystal clear here that this is not appropriate direct testimony by the defense.\n8\n9 Defense counsel, in almost every trial, stands up in front of a jury and says, You didn't see this kind of evidence,\n10 you didn't see DNA, you didn't see phone records. And they don't need to put an agent on the stand to prove that negative.\n11 They are able to make that argument without having to put on that case through affirmative agent testimony, and the same is\n12 true here.\n13\n14 THE COURT: You can certainly argue to the jury from the indictment and what they are being instructed to determine\n15 what the age of the allegations are.\n16\n17 MR. EVERDELL: Okay. I understand, your Honor.\n18 As we're doing this, I think maybe we should raise a few other points, since I don't want to violate the judge's\n19 ruling.\n20\n21 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014145",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 39 of 197 2580 LCHVMAX2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 THE COURT: How about this: I'll let you ask the agent -- I suppose I'll hear from the government.\n\n3 What is the time period of the allegations that she investigated?\n\n5 MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I think that the investigation that this agent was the case agent for was much broader than\nthe charges here. And so it could lead to avenues that are not appropriate for this trial and that are irrelevant to this\ntrial. And I think that your Honor's pretrial ruling was crystal clear here that this is not appropriate direct testimony by the defense.\n\nDefense counsel, in almost every trial, stands up in front of a jury and says, You didn't see this kind of evidence,\nyou didn't see DNA, you didn't see phone records. And they don't need to put an agent on the stand to prove that negative.\nThey are able to make that argument without having to put on that case through affirmative agent testimony, and the same is\ntrue here.\n\nTHE COURT: You can certainly argue to the jury from the indictment and what they are being instructed to determine\nwhat the age of the allegations are.\n\nMR. EVERDELL: Okay. I understand, your Honor.\nAs we're doing this, I think maybe we should raise a few other points, since I don't want to violate the judge's\nruling.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014145",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. COMEY",
      "MR. EVERDELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014145"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}