mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014335.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "31",
    "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 31 of 95 2769 LCI1MAX1\n\n1 MR. ROHRBACH: I've only read portions of it too, but\n2 that's my quick read.\n3 THE COURT: So the defendant's argument in Miller was\n4 that the prostitution or other criminal sexual activity must be\n5 the dominant purpose of the interstate travel rather than only\n6 one of the dominant purposes as the judge charged.\n7 MR. ROHRBACH: In fact, your Honor, I think in light\n8 of that conclusion, the final sentence of the defense's\n9 proposed instruction would be suggestive of error because the\n10 point is that -- or at least creates the very confusion that\n11 arose in Miller about whether it has to be one of the dominant\n12 purposes. The use of the word \"dominant\" is a source of\n13 confusion, as Sand has explained.\n14 MR. EVERDELL: Well, your Honor, on that point, the\n15 language \"significant or motivating purpose\" is completely\n16 invented by Sand, right, and now people have used it because\n17 Sand is an authority in this area, but that does not -- that\n18 did not come from case law. That is Sand's proposal to deal\n19 with the issue of the dominant purpose versus one dominant\n20 purpose. There is, however, case law in many circuits where\n21 the instruction \"one dominant purpose\" is accepted instruction,\n22 and the Miller case endorses that instruction because that was\n23 the charge that was given by Judge Rakoff and they said it was\n24 perfectly proper to give that charge. So I actually think\n25 there is more support in the case law for the \"one dominant\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00014335",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 31 of 95 2769 LCI1MAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 MR. ROHRBACH: I've only read portions of it too, but\n2 that's my quick read.\n3 THE COURT: So the defendant's argument in Miller was\n4 that the prostitution or other criminal sexual activity must be\n5 the dominant purpose of the interstate travel rather than only\n6 one of the dominant purposes as the judge charged.\n7 MR. ROHRBACH: In fact, your Honor, I think in light\n8 of that conclusion, the final sentence of the defense's\n9 proposed instruction would be suggestive of error because the\n10 point is that -- or at least creates the very confusion that\n11 arose in Miller about whether it has to be one of the dominant\n12 purposes. The use of the word \"dominant\" is a source of\n13 confusion, as Sand has explained.\n14 MR. EVERDELL: Well, your Honor, on that point, the\n15 language \"significant or motivating purpose\" is completely\n16 invented by Sand, right, and now people have used it because\n17 Sand is an authority in this area, but that does not -- that\n18 did not come from case law. That is Sand's proposal to deal\n19 with the issue of the dominant purpose versus one dominant\n20 purpose. There is, however, case law in many circuits where\n21 the instruction \"one dominant purpose\" is accepted instruction,\n22 and the Miller case endorses that instruction because that was\n23 the charge that was given by Judge Rakoff and they said it was\n24 perfectly proper to give that charge. So I actually think\n25 there is more support in the case law for the \"one dominant",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014335",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. ROHRBACH",
      "THE COURT",
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "Judge Rakoff",
      "Sand"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "765",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014335"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}