mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014147.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "41",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 41 of 197 2582 LCHVMAX2 1 circumstances. 2 In that case, law enforcement had received a tip that the defendant was innocent because another individual shot the victim. The Second Circuit stated that cross-examination of the lead investigating officer on that tip was probative because the jury could conclude that law enforcement had prematurely concluded the defendant was the shooter and it failed to investigate diligently the possibility that it was the other individual. That was the Watson case. 10 I think we want to make these points, your Honor, because I think the point to the jury is the government credited the witnesses, the accusers in this case, without following up on the information that they provided to see if it was wrong. Not following up on that information is probative of the defendant's guilt or innocence in this case; because had they followed up, we believe they would have heard that that was not true from these witnesses. And so that goes to the guilt or innocence of this defendant. 19 I do intend to get into that on the stand and talk to them about, You spoke to Jane on X date. And on that date she told you about group sexualized massages involving this person and that person; isn't that right? Yes. Spoke to her on another date; she mentioned a few other names. Spoke to her on a third date; she mentioned names again, and she gave physical descriptions of these people. She said certain details about SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014147",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 41 of 197 2582 LCHVMAX2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 circumstances. 2 In that case, law enforcement had received a tip that the defendant was innocent because another individual shot the victim. The Second Circuit stated that cross-examination of the lead investigating officer on that tip was probative because the jury could conclude that law enforcement had prematurely concluded the defendant was the shooter and it failed to investigate diligently the possibility that it was the other individual. That was the Watson case. 10 I think we want to make these points, your Honor, because I think the point to the jury is the government credited the witnesses, the accusers in this case, without following up on the information that they provided to see if it was wrong. Not following up on that information is probative of the defendant's guilt or innocence in this case; because had they followed up, we believe they would have heard that that was not true from these witnesses. And so that goes to the guilt or innocence of this defendant. 19 I do intend to get into that on the stand and talk to them about, You spoke to Jane on X date. And on that date she told you about group sexualized massages involving this person and that person; isn't that right? Yes. Spoke to her on another date; she mentioned a few other names. Spoke to her on a third date; she mentioned names again, and she gave physical descriptions of these people. She said certain details about",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014147",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Watson"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "X date"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014147"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}