mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014338.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "34",
    "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 34 of 95 2772\nLCI1MAX1\n\n1 been given in the Second Circuit, both of which have been\n2 endorsed by the Second Circuit, neither of which is required\n3 but both are permissible.\n4 THE COURT: But I think what we have here is Second\n5 Circuit agreeing with Sand that \"dominant\" can be confusing.\n6 And so I will stick with your original proposal and not the\n7 request to change that out now for the language adopted by\n8 Judge Rakoff because it would include the -- although deemed\n9 not error, it would include the \"one dominant purpose\"\n10 language, which is potentially confusing and not moored to the\n11 text of the statute.\n12 What's next?\n13 MR. EVERDELL: Understood, your Honor.\n14 The next page, your Honor?\n15 THE COURT: Yes, please.\n16 MR. EVERDELL: Page 24. So this is the page where the\n17 charge describes the violation of New York law.\n18 THE COURT: Page? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm on my annotated\n19 version. Just a second.\n20 Yes.\n21 MR. EVERDELL: Well, first, this one very small change\n22 on line 19, if we could replace \"the defendant\" with\n23 \"Ms. Maxwell.\"\n24 THE COURT: Okay.\n25 MR. EVERDELL: But there's a larger request.\n\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 34 of 95 2772",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LCI1MAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "been given in the Second Circuit, both of which have been endorsed by the Second Circuit, neither of which is required but both are permissible. THE COURT: But I think what we have here is Second Circuit agreeing with Sand that \"dominant\" can be confusing. And so I will stick with your original proposal and not the request to change that out now for the language adopted by Judge Rakoff because it would include the -- although deemed not error, it would include the \"one dominant purpose\" language, which is potentially confusing and not moored to the text of the statute. What's next? MR. EVERDELL: Understood, your Honor. The next page, your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, please. MR. EVERDELL: Page 24. So this is the page where the charge describes the violation of New York law. THE COURT: Page? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm on my annotated version. Just a second. Yes. MR. EVERDELL: Well, first, this one very small change on line 19, if we could replace \"the defendant\" with \"Ms. Maxwell.\" THE COURT: Okay. MR. EVERDELL: But there's a larger request.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Rakoff",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "MR. EVERDELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "765",
      "24"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}