mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014362.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "58",
    "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 58 of 95 2796 LCI1MAX1\n1 THE COURT: So I think that's the request. So line 18 on my page 50, which is the second page of Instruction No. 36, we will cut comma, \"including at times Maxwell,\" comma.\n2 MR. ROHRBACH: And in light of that change, your Honor, on line 11 of that page, it should say, \"The indictment alleges as follows.\"\n3 THE COURT: Right. On line 11, changing \"reads\" to \"alleges.\"\n4 What's next, Mr. Everdell?\n5 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. It's on page 51, line 15. I think we've been using \"Ms. Maxwell\" in this charge, so we'll change on line 15 \"the defendant\" to \"Ms. Maxwell.\"\n6 MR. ROHRBACH: That's fine, your Honor.\n7 THE COURT: Okay. So we're on Instruction No. 36. Close to the end of that, the second to last paragraph of that instruction, line 15, changing \"the defendant\" to \"Ms. Maxwell.\"\n8 So one question. We've taken Kate out of the overt acts. Page 51, lines 13 through 16 are no longer seem to make sense.\n9 MR. EVERDELL: 51, your Honor?\n10 THE COURT: Yeah. Right?\n11 MR. EVERDELL: Well, I understand what you're saying with respect to reference to overt acts because she's not in\n12 SOUTHERN 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 58 of 95 2796 LCI1MAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 THE COURT: So I think that's the request. So line 18 on my page 50, which is the second page of Instruction No. 36, we will cut comma, \"including at times Maxwell,\" comma.\n2 MR. ROHRBACH: And in light of that change, your Honor, on line 11 of that page, it should say, \"The indictment alleges as follows.\"\n3 THE COURT: Right. On line 11, changing \"reads\" to \"alleges.\"\n4 What's next, Mr. Everdell?\n5 MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. It's on page 51, line 15. I think we've been using \"Ms. Maxwell\" in this charge, so we'll change on line 15 \"the defendant\" to \"Ms. Maxwell.\"\n6 MR. ROHRBACH: That's fine, your Honor.\n7 THE COURT: Okay. So we're on Instruction No. 36. Close to the end of that, the second to last paragraph of that instruction, line 15, changing \"the defendant\" to \"Ms. Maxwell.\"\n8 So one question. We've taken Kate out of the overt acts. Page 51, lines 13 through 16 are no longer seem to make sense.\n9 MR. EVERDELL: 51, your Honor?\n10 THE COURT: Yeah. Right?\n11 MR. EVERDELL: Well, I understand what you're saying with respect to reference to overt acts because she's not in",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Everdell",
      "Mr. Rohrbach",
      "Maxwell",
      "Kate"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "765",
      "36",
      "50",
      "51",
      "58",
      "95",
      "2796",
      "LCI1MAX1",
      "(212) 805-0300"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}