mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014312.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "document_number": "765",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 8 of 95 2746 LCI1MAX1\nnow reads, \"Count One relates to multiple alleged victims in the time period 1994 into 2004.\" We believe it should read, \"Count One relates solely to Jane and the time period 1994 to 2004.\" And I can explain, if you like, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: Let me just get my eyes on it.\nOkay.\nMR. EVERDELL: So, your Honor, this is an issue I think we've gone back and forth on quite a bit in the motions in limine. But with respect to the government's theory of the conspiracy and of the substantive counts, enticement and transportation, so Counts One through Four, is that the underlying object was a violation of New York law, right, Section 130.55. So there has to be -- the object of this conspiracy is a violation of New York law. With respect to Kate, there was no violation of New York law. Your Honor already instructed the jury that they can't consider that evidence for purposes of conviction because she was above the age of consent. There was no violation of New York law. Same thing with --\nTHE COURT: Well, just to be slightly more precise, they can't convict on that count based solely on the evidence of the conduct involving her.\nMR. EVERDELL: Correct. And with respect to Annie, the Court also instructed that this is -- whatever conduct they may find that she talked about in New Mexico, was not illegal\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 8 of 95 2746 LCI1MAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "now reads, \"Count One relates to multiple alleged victims in the time period 1994 into 2004.\" We believe it should read, \"Count One relates solely to Jane and the time period 1994 to 2004.\" And I can explain, if you like, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: Let me just get my eyes on it.\nOkay.\nMR. EVERDELL: So, your Honor, this is an issue I think we've gone back and forth on quite a bit in the motions in limine. But with respect to the government's theory of the conspiracy and of the substantive counts, enticement and transportation, so Counts One through Four, is that the underlying object was a violation of New York law, right, Section 130.55. So there has to be -- the object of this conspiracy is a violation of New York law. With respect to Kate, there was no violation of New York law. Your Honor already instructed the jury that they can't consider that evidence for purposes of conviction because she was above the age of consent. There was no violation of New York law. Same thing with --\nTHE COURT: Well, just to be slightly more precise, they can't convict on that count based solely on the evidence of the conduct involving her.\nMR. EVERDELL: Correct. And with respect to Annie, the Court also instructed that this is -- whatever conduct they may find that she talked about in New Mexico, was not illegal",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Kate",
      "Annie",
      "MR. EVERDELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "New Mexico"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "1994",
      "2004",
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "765"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}