mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014339.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "35",
    "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 35 of 95 2773\nLCI1MAX1\n1 THE COURT: All right. Page 24, line 19, I'll adopt that change. So instead of \"the defendant,\" \"Ms. Maxwell.\" Just one moment.\n2 Okay.\n3 MR. EVERDELL: Okay. So the additional request is -- this is where the issue of the fact that Kate was above the age of consent and about the fact that -- well, Annie's testimony was not a violation of New York law. That's what the Court gave the limiting instruction to the jury on. We think that it is appropriate to incorporate those limiting instructions into the jury charge and that this is the place where it should be given. Because it's one thing to give the limiting instruction at the time of the testimony -- that is what we asked for and we appreciate the Court doing that -- but I think that they need to be instructed again before they go into deliberations, now having heard 12 plus days of testimony, that what those considerations -- that testimony they are allowed to consider for what purpose, because if they're given an instruction on New York law, I think it's time to reiterate in the charge to them that Kate was over the age of consent and was not involved -- it cannot be considered illegal sexual activity, because this is where the illegal sexual activity is defined. And same with Annie. I have a proposed instruction to add here, but it tracks the language of the limiting instruction the Court gave, so I don't think it's adding any language. I\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 35 of 95 2773",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LCI1MAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 THE COURT: All right. Page 24, line 19, I'll adopt that change. So instead of \"the defendant,\" \"Ms. Maxwell.\" Just one moment.\n2 Okay.\n3 MR. EVERDELL: Okay. So the additional request is -- this is where the issue of the fact that Kate was above the age of consent and about the fact that -- well, Annie's testimony was not a violation of New York law. That's what the Court gave the limiting instruction to the jury on. We think that it is appropriate to incorporate those limiting instructions into the jury charge and that this is the place where it should be given. Because it's one thing to give the limiting instruction at the time of the testimony -- that is what we asked for and we appreciate the Court doing that -- but I think that they need to be instructed again before they go into deliberations, now having heard 12 plus days of testimony, that what those considerations -- that testimony they are allowed to consider for what purpose, because if they're given an instruction on New York law, I think it's time to reiterate in the charge to them that Kate was over the age of consent and was not involved -- it cannot be considered illegal sexual activity, because this is where the illegal sexual activity is defined. And same with Annie. I have a proposed instruction to add here, but it tracks the language of the limiting instruction the Court gave, so I don't think it's adding any language. I",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Kate",
      "Annie",
      "MR. EVERDELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "765"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}