mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014149.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "43",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/2022",
    "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 43 of 197 2584 LCHVMAX2 precluded. THE COURT: I've relitigated so many issues in this case, so I suppose this is just going out with the same pattern. But I said in my ruling, in its brief, the defense seeks to affirmatively -- and I'll quote from the brief -- \"call FBI case agents as witnesses\" to ask who they talked to, what documents they subpoenaed, and when. But as the Second Circuit explained in Saldarriaga, the government's use or nonuse of certain investigative techniques does not tend to show the defendant's innocence of the charges. That's transcript at page 20. And I also said I would permit the defense to cross-examine law enforcement officers about the investigative steps that were taken if the government puts the thoroughness of the investigation into issue, as this too would be permissible impeachment on cross, and they did not. I suppose words have meaning in the eyes of the beholder, but what you're suggesting is directly contrary to my ruling. MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I did see that. I'm not trying to be contrary. I just went back to the premise of your ruling when I was looking at the transcript cites and the cases that you cited as premise for your ruling. And because this issue became a live issue when we had Jane's testimony, I thought it appropriate to see if we could revisit this to see SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014149",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 43 of 197 2584 LCHVMAX2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "precluded. THE COURT: I've relitigated so many issues in this case, so I suppose this is just going out with the same pattern. But I said in my ruling, in its brief, the defense seeks to affirmatively -- and I'll quote from the brief -- \"call FBI case agents as witnesses\" to ask who they talked to, what documents they subpoenaed, and when. But as the Second Circuit explained in Saldarriaga, the government's use or nonuse of certain investigative techniques does not tend to show the defendant's innocence of the charges. That's transcript at page 20. And I also said I would permit the defense to cross-examine law enforcement officers about the investigative steps that were taken if the government puts the thoroughness of the investigation into issue, as this too would be permissible impeachment on cross, and they did not. I suppose words have meaning in the eyes of the beholder, but what you're suggesting is directly contrary to my ruling. MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I did see that. I'm not trying to be contrary. I just went back to the premise of your ruling when I was looking at the transcript cites and the cases that you cited as premise for your ruling. And because this issue became a live issue when we had Jane's testimony, I thought it appropriate to see if we could revisit this to see",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014149",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "Second Circuit",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/2022"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014149"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}