mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014384.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "80 of 95",
    "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 80 of 95 2818 LCIAMAX2ps\nruling. But the ruling is what the ruling is. What's the request?\nMR. EVERDELL: The request is to eliminate the charge on this point because we couldn't -- we weren't supposed to, and nor did -- I think we tried to abide by the Court's ruling to not talk about particular investigative techniques or elicit evidence on that point. And so if we're not going to be permitted to elicit or argue that point to the jury, then it doesn't seem like they need to be instructed on that point.\nMR. ROHRBACH: This is a legally correct instruction. As the Court has ruled many times now in this case, particular investigative techniques are not required. The defense made that point, as they could, on cross through the case, and I assume it will be, as they can in the defense's summation. And this is a correct statement of the law on which the jury should be instructed.\nMR. EVERDELL: Sand has filled three volumes of correct statements on law, your Honor. That doesn't mean that they get into a jury charge.\nTHE COURT: I think I've always included this charge, so it's not just a rarely invoked Sand charge. I mean, as you talked about yesterday, there were questions you were going to -- ask.\nMR. EVERDELL: Special Agent Young.\nTHE COURT: -- Young, thank you -- that either -- some\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014384",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 80 of 95 2818 LCIAMAX2ps",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ruling. But the ruling is what the ruling is. What's the request?\nMR. EVERDELL: The request is to eliminate the charge on this point because we couldn't -- we weren't supposed to, and nor did -- I think we tried to abide by the Court's ruling to not talk about particular investigative techniques or elicit evidence on that point. And so if we're not going to be permitted to elicit or argue that point to the jury, then it doesn't seem like they need to be instructed on that point.\nMR. ROHRBACH: This is a legally correct instruction. As the Court has ruled many times now in this case, particular investigative techniques are not required. The defense made that point, as they could, on cross through the case, and I assume it will be, as they can in the defense's summation. And this is a correct statement of the law on which the jury should be instructed.\nMR. EVERDELL: Sand has filled three volumes of correct statements on law, your Honor. That doesn't mean that they get into a jury charge.\nTHE COURT: I think I've always included this charge, so it's not just a rarely invoked Sand charge. I mean, as you talked about yesterday, there were questions you were going to -- ask.\nMR. EVERDELL: Special Agent Young.\nTHE COURT: -- Young, thank you -- that either -- some",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014384",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "MR. ROHRBACH",
      "Special Agent Young"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "765",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014384"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}