mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014315.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "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 11 of 95 2749 LCI1MAX1\nof the conspiracy is to violate New York law, then an invitation to an island that's not New York doesn't count.\nAnd also, an invitation to travel to New Mexico to do whatever it is they were planning on doing in New Mexico is also not a goal of violating New York law. I'm sorry, from Arizona. So there's no connection to New York law with respect to Annie's testimony either.\nAnd so whatever purpose they want to glean from those two witnesses' testimony, Kate and Annie, or even Carolyn, the object of this conspiracy, for this to be a crime, it can only be hung on the testimony, at least in the evidence in the record, the testimony of Jane. And --\nTHE COURT: You're doing precisely what Mr. Rohrbach said, which is you're switching back and forth between the conspiracy and the substantive count. So Annie, for example, the evidence is the conduct occurred in New Mexico. That's why I gave the limiting instruction. But that could be considered with other evidence of the conspiracy with respect to New York, the violation of New York law. You don't have to have the violation of New York law to establish the elements of the conspiracy count.\nSo the objection is overruled.\nNext.\nMR. EVERDELL: All right. Next is line 13, your Honor, same page.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014315",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 11 of 95 2749 LCI1MAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "of the conspiracy is to violate New York law, then an invitation to an island that's not New York doesn't count.\nAnd also, an invitation to travel to New Mexico to do whatever it is they were planning on doing in New Mexico is also not a goal of violating New York law. I'm sorry, from Arizona. So there's no connection to New York law with respect to Annie's testimony either.\nAnd so whatever purpose they want to glean from those two witnesses' testimony, Kate and Annie, or even Carolyn, the object of this conspiracy, for this to be a crime, it can only be hung on the testimony, at least in the evidence in the record, the testimony of Jane. And --\nTHE COURT: You're doing precisely what Mr. Rohrbach said, which is you're switching back and forth between the conspiracy and the substantive count. So Annie, for example, the evidence is the conduct occurred in New Mexico. That's why I gave the limiting instruction. But that could be considered with other evidence of the conspiracy with respect to New York, the violation of New York law. You don't have to have the violation of New York law to establish the elements of the conspiracy count.\nSo the objection is overruled.\nNext.\nMR. EVERDELL: All right. Next is line 13, your Honor, same page.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014315",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Rohrbach",
      "Kate",
      "Annie",
      "Carolyn",
      "Jane",
      "MR. EVERDELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "New Mexico",
      "Arizona"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "765",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014315"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}