mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014383.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "79",
    "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 79 of 95 2817 LCIAMAX2ps defendants. They did not call her. To the extent the main issue here is Virginia Roberts' testimony, that she was equally available to both sides. MR. EVERDELL: It's not Virginia Roberts that I'm thinking of, your Honor. I'm happy to say the name. It's Sarah Kellen. THE COURT: OK. I mean, suppose -- look, as I said, I've only slightly changed the meaning. It's the same meaning but it takes emphasis off of \"equal.\" I don't know what the defense is going to focus on in its closings, how much of the focus will be the absence of individuals. MR. EVERDELL: I expect we'll be talking about the absence of individuals, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I'll hear from you in your letter. I'm keeping the charge. And it will either be the standard charge or the very slight modification I've proposed. Next. MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, page 69. THE COURT: OK. MR. EVERDELL: That's the particular investigative techniques charge. We were prohibited from the Court's rulings and from eliciting evidence and from arguing this point about particular investigative techniques, and so we -- THE COURT: Well, to be clear, not on cross with respect to witnesses called. But I don't need to repeat my SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014383",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 79 of 95 2817 LCIAMAX2ps",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "defendants. They did not call her. To the extent the main issue here is Virginia Roberts' testimony, that she was equally available to both sides. MR. EVERDELL: It's not Virginia Roberts that I'm thinking of, your Honor. I'm happy to say the name. It's Sarah Kellen. THE COURT: OK. I mean, suppose -- look, as I said, I've only slightly changed the meaning. It's the same meaning but it takes emphasis off of \"equal.\" I don't know what the defense is going to focus on in its closings, how much of the focus will be the absence of individuals. MR. EVERDELL: I expect we'll be talking about the absence of individuals, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I'll hear from you in your letter. I'm keeping the charge. And it will either be the standard charge or the very slight modification I've proposed. Next. MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, page 69. THE COURT: OK. MR. EVERDELL: That's the particular investigative techniques charge. We were prohibited from the Court's rulings and from eliciting evidence and from arguing this point about particular investigative techniques, and so we -- THE COURT: Well, to be clear, not on cross with respect to witnesses called. But I don't need to repeat my",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014383",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Virginia Roberts",
      "Sarah Kellen",
      "MR. EVERDELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "765",
      "69",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014383"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}