mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014385.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "81 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 81 of 95 2819 LCIAMAX2ps\nof which were asked of the relevant investigative agents or arguments that could be made based on the absence of evidence in the record and the like. And my ruling was what it was, which didn't foreclose entirely the opportunity with respect to cross-examination and the like. I suspect this will be part of the defense's arguments in closing, so it's appropriate to include the charge.\nMR. EVERDELL: Understood.\nJust as long as we're allowed to argue, are permitted to argue in closing about absence of evidence consistent with the Court's ruling.\nTHE COURT: Absolutely, so long as the inference is available in the record.\nAnd I'll just pause, because I made a note to say this. I have a decent memory, and my afternoon and tomorrow will be spent reviewing much of the trial testimony. I don't want objections during closings, but that requires -- I gather it's Ms. Menninger that's doing the closing and Ms. Moe, who are absent today. So for both sides, any inference argued had better be from the transcript or the documents, and any objections should be rare and not based on your interpretation of the available evidence but the fact of the available evidence. We should get through closings without objections.\nMR. EVERDELL: Understood, your Honor.\nMR. ROHRBACH: Understood on our part, your Honor.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014385",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 81 of 95 2819 LCIAMAX2ps",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "of which were asked of the relevant investigative agents or arguments that could be made based on the absence of evidence in the record and the like. And my ruling was what it was, which didn't foreclose entirely the opportunity with respect to cross-examination and the like. I suspect this will be part of the defense's arguments in closing, so it's appropriate to include the charge.\nMR. EVERDELL: Understood.\nJust as long as we're allowed to argue, are permitted to argue in closing about absence of evidence consistent with the Court's ruling.\nTHE COURT: Absolutely, so long as the inference is available in the record.\nAnd I'll just pause, because I made a note to say this. I have a decent memory, and my afternoon and tomorrow will be spent reviewing much of the trial testimony. I don't want objections during closings, but that requires -- I gather it's Ms. Menninger that's doing the closing and Ms. Moe, who are absent today. So for both sides, any inference argued had better be from the transcript or the documents, and any objections should be rare and not based on your interpretation of the available evidence but the fact of the available evidence. We should get through closings without objections.\nMR. EVERDELL: Understood, your Honor.\nMR. ROHRBACH: Understood on our part, your Honor.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014385",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "THE COURT",
      "MR. ROHRBACH",
      "Ms. Menninger",
      "Ms. Moe"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "765",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014385"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}