mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014157.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "51",
    "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 51 of 197 2592\n\n1 MS. COMEY: So then to be clear, your Honor, is it the case that Agent Young is only being called for prior inconsistent statements?\n2 MR. EVERDELL: Maybe we need to confer a little bit before this.\n3 THE COURT: Okay. Who's the first witness?\n4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Jason Richards, your Honor, Special Agent Richards, which is a short witness.\n5 MS. COMEY: That's another witness we offered to stipulate to, your Honor. Prior inconsistent statements, I think there are two that he's going to be called to testify --\n6 THE COURT: That he's just doing those, Mr. Pagliuca, or anything else?\n7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Excuse me, your Honor?\n8 THE COURT: I'm sorry.\n9 Is he just doing those two --\n10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, that's it.\n11 THE COURT: Okay. And then who's after that?\n12 MR. EVERDELL: Well, it would have been Young, Agent Young.\n13 THE COURT: Okay.\n14 MR. EVERDELL: And then it's -- we have Eva Dubin.\n15 THE COURT: Okay.\n16 Why don't we do Richards and then Dubin, and see if you can stipulate on Young. Does that make sense?\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014157",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 51 of 197 2592",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 MS. COMEY: So then to be clear, your Honor, is it the case that Agent Young is only being called for prior inconsistent statements?\n2 MR. EVERDELL: Maybe we need to confer a little bit before this.\n3 THE COURT: Okay. Who's the first witness?\n4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Jason Richards, your Honor, Special Agent Richards, which is a short witness.\n5 MS. COMEY: That's another witness we offered to stipulate to, your Honor. Prior inconsistent statements, I think there are two that he's going to be called to testify --\n6 THE COURT: That he's just doing those, Mr. Pagliuca, or anything else?\n7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Excuse me, your Honor?\n8 THE COURT: I'm sorry.\n9 Is he just doing those two --\n10 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, that's it.\n11 THE COURT: Okay. And then who's after that?\n12 MR. EVERDELL: Well, it would have been Young, Agent Young.\n13 THE COURT: Okay.\n14 MR. EVERDELL: And then it's -- we have Eva Dubin.\n15 THE COURT: Okay.\n16 Why don't we do Richards and then Dubin, and see if you can stipulate on Young. Does that make sense?",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014157",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. COMEY",
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "THE COURT",
      "MR. PAGLIUCA",
      "Jason Richards",
      "Agent Young",
      "Eva Dubin"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014157"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}