mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014337.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "33",
    "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 33 of 95 2771\nLC1MAX1\n1 only one of the dominant purposes.\n2 THE COURT: Let me just note my remarkably crack law\n3 clerks have found the following case: United States v. An Soon\n4 Kim.\n5 MR. EVERDELL: Yes.\n6 THE COURT: You're aware of it.\n7 MR. EVERDELL: Yes. But that case --\n8 THE COURT: Just let me give the cite. 471 F. App'x\n9 82 (2d Cir. 2012). Summary order, obviously, but it says a\n10 couple of things. One -- ooh, I lost what my crack law clerk\n11 sent there. It endorses the Sand language over \"dominant.\"\n12 \"These instructions are legally sound. Neither 'dominant' nor\n13 'predominant' appear in the statutory language. Although we\n14 have previously approved a jury charge that included the phrase\n15 \"one of the dominant purposes,\" (see, e.g., Miller) we've never\n16 required such language to appear in a jury charge on 2421.\n17 Indeed, Judge Sand recommends excluding the word 'dominant'\n18 from the charge so as to avoid confusion.\" And then at the end\n19 of the opinion, \"The charge given by the district court, which\n20 closely tracks the charge outlined by Judge Sand, accurately\n21 and thoroughly conveyed the second element of the crime.\n22 Accordingly, we find no error, much less plain error, in the\n23 jury charge.\"\n24 MR. EVERDELL: Yes. So the way I read that case, your\n25 Honor, is that there are two variants on how this charge has\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 33 of 95 2771",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LC1MAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 only one of the dominant purposes.\n2 THE COURT: Let me just note my remarkably crack law\n3 clerks have found the following case: United States v. An Soon\n4 Kim.\n5 MR. EVERDELL: Yes.\n6 THE COURT: You're aware of it.\n7 MR. EVERDELL: Yes. But that case --\n8 THE COURT: Just let me give the cite. 471 F. App'x\n9 82 (2d Cir. 2012). Summary order, obviously, but it says a\n10 couple of things. One -- ooh, I lost what my crack law clerk\n11 sent there. It endorses the Sand language over \"dominant.\"\n12 \"These instructions are legally sound. Neither 'dominant' nor\n13 'predominant' appear in the statutory language. Although we\n14 have previously approved a jury charge that included the phrase\n15 \"one of the dominant purposes,\" (see, e.g., Miller) we've never\n16 required such language to appear in a jury charge on 2421.\n17 Indeed, Judge Sand recommends excluding the word 'dominant'\n18 from the charge so as to avoid confusion.\" And then at the end\n19 of the opinion, \"The charge given by the district court, which\n20 closely tracks the charge outlined by Judge Sand, accurately\n21 and thoroughly conveyed the second element of the crime.\n22 Accordingly, we find no error, much less plain error, in the\n23 jury charge.\"\n24 MR. EVERDELL: Yes. So the way I read that case, your\n25 Honor, is that there are two variants on how this charge has",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "An Soon Kim",
      "Miller",
      "Judge Sand",
      "Mr. Everdell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "Southern District Reporters, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "2012"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "765",
      "471 F. App'x 82",
      "2421"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}