mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014358.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "54",
    "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 54 of 95 2792\nLC11MAX1\nnot the violation of New York law. So that is our objection to that.\nMR. ROHRBACH: Well, I think, understanding that Mr. Everdell is I think preserving the earlier objection about Annie's testimony, as far as the suggestion to resolve the redacting issue is just to remove her age from this clause, I think that would be fine and the jury can make its own conclusions about, you know, Annie's age and how it relates to the offense.\nTHE COURT: I understand the broader suggestion, but in light of my earlier conclusion, this third overt act would read, \"In or about 1996, Maxwell provided Annie with an unsolicited massage in New Mexico.\"\nMR. ROHRBACH: That's my understanding of Mr. Everdell's suggestion, and the government would be fine with that.\nMR. EVERDELL: And I guess to clarify, Judge, I'm understanding the Court's logic to be that the testimony of Annie about the topless massage can be considered by the jury as evidence of the conspiracy to violate New York law.\nTHE COURT: That's right.\nMR. EVERDELL: Okay. And understanding that's the Court's logic and ruling, then we would -- but then we would like the redaction. We preserve our objection from before, but -- yes.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014358",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 54 of 95 2792",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LC11MAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "not the violation of New York law. So that is our objection to that.\nMR. ROHRBACH: Well, I think, understanding that Mr. Everdell is I think preserving the earlier objection about Annie's testimony, as far as the suggestion to resolve the redacting issue is just to remove her age from this clause, I think that would be fine and the jury can make its own conclusions about, you know, Annie's age and how it relates to the offense.\nTHE COURT: I understand the broader suggestion, but in light of my earlier conclusion, this third overt act would read, \"In or about 1996, Maxwell provided Annie with an unsolicited massage in New Mexico.\"\nMR. ROHRBACH: That's my understanding of Mr. Everdell's suggestion, and the government would be fine with that.\nMR. EVERDELL: And I guess to clarify, Judge, I'm understanding the Court's logic to be that the testimony of Annie about the topless massage can be considered by the jury as evidence of the conspiracy to violate New York law.\nTHE COURT: That's right.\nMR. EVERDELL: Okay. And understanding that's the Court's logic and ruling, then we would -- but then we would like the redaction. We preserve our objection from before, but -- yes.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014358",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Rohrbach",
      "Mr. Everdell",
      "Annie",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "New Mexico"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "1996"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "765",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014358"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}