mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014258.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "152",
    "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 152 of 197 2693 LCHCmax5\n1 there weren't any 26.2 materials disclosed.\n2 So I think, from that record, they're aware of who\n3 this person was, they were planning on calling them on Monday,\n4 and had still not disclosed to the government they were\n5 planning to call this person or who they were.\n6 Just to echo our concern from this morning about why\n7 we're hearing about this so late and why the case would be held\n8 over for a late disclosed witness --\n9 THE COURT: What was the government's understanding of\n10 what they were referring to for Monday?\n11 MS. MODE: We didn't know. And we were confused about\n12 the issue related to the person who had asked for anonymity who\n13 was a plainclothes police officer in the United Kingdom. So\n14 when defense referred to a witness potentially from the United\n15 Kingdom, that's what we thought that was referring to. We did\n16 not realize that was a reference to someone who had not been\n17 disclosed to the government.\n18 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I believe the way the\n19 sequence worked, there was a different witness from the U.K.\n20 that, days ago, we said we might need to call, and anticipated\n21 Monday because of the number of witnesses we thought we were\n22 going to call. That is somebody different.\n23 Then, as we were talking about it, I believe the other\n24 day, I said there may be another short witness on Monday. I\n25 was referring to the same witness. We hadn't given the name of\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014258",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 152 of 197 2693 LCHCmax5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 there weren't any 26.2 materials disclosed.\n2 So I think, from that record, they're aware of who\n3 this person was, they were planning on calling them on Monday,\n4 and had still not disclosed to the government they were\n5 planning to call this person or who they were.\n6 Just to echo our concern from this morning about why\n7 we're hearing about this so late and why the case would be held\n8 over for a late disclosed witness --\n9 THE COURT: What was the government's understanding of\n10 what they were referring to for Monday?\n11 MS. MODE: We didn't know. And we were confused about\n12 the issue related to the person who had asked for anonymity who\n13 was a plainclothes police officer in the United Kingdom. So\n14 when defense referred to a witness potentially from the United\n15 Kingdom, that's what we thought that was referring to. We did\n16 not realize that was a reference to someone who had not been\n17 disclosed to the government.\n18 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I believe the way the\n19 sequence worked, there was a different witness from the U.K.\n20 that, days ago, we said we might need to call, and anticipated\n21 Monday because of the number of witnesses we thought we were\n22 going to call. That is somebody different.\n23 Then, as we were talking about it, I believe the other\n24 day, I said there may be another short witness on Monday. I\n25 was referring to the same witness. We hadn't given the name of",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014258",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MODE",
      "MR. EVERDELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United Kingdom",
      "U.K."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "Monday"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "08/10/22",
      "152",
      "197",
      "2693",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014258"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}