mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014334.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "30",
    "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 30 of 95 2768 LCI1MAX1 across state lines to have her engage in criminal sexual conduct, in violation of New York law. It need not have been her only purpose or motivation, but it must have been more than merely incidental. It must have been one of the dominant purposes of the trip. MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, all that the law requires is that it be one of the dominant purposes of the trip, which is the instruction that the defense originally sought and the Court gave. It's the practice, as Sand endorses, to rephrase \"dominant\" as \"significant or motivating purpose\" to avoid confusion, because it doesn't have to be the sole dominant purpose, it just has to be a dominant purpose, and so from Sand, that creates ambiguity that it has to be a sufficient -- such a big purpose that it's the dominant purpose, which is not what is required by the statute. This instruction suggests there's an additional requirement, which is that it be some sort of conscious purpose to engage in the particular criminal violation suggesting knowledge of the criminal statute and criminal prohibition. All the Miller case does is affirm that this instruction is not error. It does not say that that is the required instruction by -- at least as I'm reading the -- I'm reading the Miller case for the first time now, but it is an appeal from a conviction on that instruction. It is not suggesting that it's required by -- THE COURT: Let me look. I've only read the -- SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014334",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 30 of 95 2768 LCI1MAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "across state lines to have her engage in criminal sexual conduct, in violation of New York law. It need not have been her only purpose or motivation, but it must have been more than merely incidental. It must have been one of the dominant purposes of the trip. MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, all that the law requires is that it be one of the dominant purposes of the trip, which is the instruction that the defense originally sought and the Court gave. It's the practice, as Sand endorses, to rephrase \"dominant\" as \"significant or motivating purpose\" to avoid confusion, because it doesn't have to be the sole dominant purpose, it just has to be a dominant purpose, and so from Sand, that creates ambiguity that it has to be a sufficient -- such a big purpose that it's the dominant purpose, which is not what is required by the statute. This instruction suggests there's an additional requirement, which is that it be some sort of conscious purpose to engage in the particular criminal violation suggesting knowledge of the criminal statute and criminal prohibition. All the Miller case does is affirm that this instruction is not error. It does not say that that is the required instruction by -- at least as I'm reading the -- I'm reading the Miller case for the first time now, but it is an appeal from a conviction on that instruction. It is not suggesting that it's required by --",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "THE COURT: Let me look. I've only read the --",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014334",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. ROHRBACH"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 765",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014334"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}