mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014148.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "42",
    "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 42 of 197 2583 LCHVMAX2\n\nthese people which I will elicit.\nYou were aware of someone named Michelle in this case.\nYou were aware, for example, of this Michelle -- and I'm going to have to use her full name, because we lost the anonymity issue, but you're aware that there was a Michelle Healy who worked in the office. You never spoke to Michelle Healy, did you? So I would like to be able to do that. Under your Honor's ruling, I believe, that's appropriate under the Watson case.\nTHE COURT: Mr. Rohrbach.\nMR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, I disagree with almost every premise of what Mr. Everdell just said. But the core legal issue is one the Court has already analyzed which is the Watson case is a Brady case. It doesn't stand for anything, as the Second Circuit has held, about exactly what sorts of evidence can and can't come in. The Court has explained that the challenges of the thoroughness of the investigation can come in in lots of ways, including cross-examination. The defense counsel could and did ask Jane when she testified who was in the room during the massages. They can put on evidence of witnesses who they believe are the other people in the room. But what they can't do is in their direct case, call a case agent and say, You didn't take this investigative step; you didn't take that investigative step. That is precisely the challenge to the thoroughness of the investigation that's\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014148",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 42 of 197 2583 LCHVMAX2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "these people which I will elicit.\nYou were aware of someone named Michelle in this case.\nYou were aware, for example, of this Michelle -- and I'm going to have to use her full name, because we lost the anonymity issue, but you're aware that there was a Michelle Healy who worked in the office. You never spoke to Michelle Healy, did you? So I would like to be able to do that. Under your Honor's ruling, I believe, that's appropriate under the Watson case.\nTHE COURT: Mr. Rohrbach.\nMR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, I disagree with almost every premise of what Mr. Everdell just said. But the core legal issue is one the Court has already analyzed which is the Watson case is a Brady case. It doesn't stand for anything, as the Second Circuit has held, about exactly what sorts of evidence can and can't come in. The Court has explained that the challenges of the thoroughness of the investigation can come in in lots of ways, including cross-examination. The defense counsel could and did ask Jane when she testified who was in the room during the massages. They can put on evidence of witnesses who they believe are the other people in the room. But what they can't do is in their direct case, call a case agent and say, You didn't take this investigative step; you didn't take that investigative step. That is precisely the challenge to the thoroughness of the investigation that's",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014148",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Michelle Healy",
      "Mr. Everdell",
      "Mr. Rohrbach",
      "Jane"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014148"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}