mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014559.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "159",
    "document_number": "767",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 767 Filed 08/10/22 Page 159 of 257 2993 LCKCmax7\n1 preclude any arguments to the jury that the defendant was a substitute for Jeffrey Epstein. That's the exact argument that\n2 Ms. Menninger advanced to the jury in closing, which the Court precluded.\n3\n4 THE COURT: Not with respect to motivation for the witness's testimony. There is a reason I gave -- for both\n5 sides, you've both now done this, which is basically to reargue sort of precisely the line that I crafted and ruled on in my\n6 pretrial rulings. I have maintained those lines throughout trial with a couple of exceptions where there was a little bit\n7 of door opening and the like, but I don't have in mind, yes, they made the argument that Epstein's death is a factor in the\n8 motivation for the changing the stories, which is what I said was -- to the extent that arguments go to the credibility of\n9 witnesses, that's where I drew the line.\n10 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I was referring to the argument early in Ms. Menninger's summation about I took to\n11 mean an argument that the government was substituting Ms. Maxwell for Mr. Epstein. Again, we want to review the\n12 transcript, but that's how we heard it.\n13 There were also arguments throughout summation about the victims doing that, which I understand the Court has ruled\n14 on that there is a difference between those two, but we think where that crosses the line is an argument where the government\n15 is doing that.\n16 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014559",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 767 Filed 08/10/22 Page 159 of 257 2993 LCKCmax7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 preclude any arguments to the jury that the defendant was a substitute for Jeffrey Epstein. That's the exact argument that\n2 Ms. Menninger advanced to the jury in closing, which the Court precluded.\n3\n4 THE COURT: Not with respect to motivation for the witness's testimony. There is a reason I gave -- for both\n5 sides, you've both now done this, which is basically to reargue sort of precisely the line that I crafted and ruled on in my\n6 pretrial rulings. I have maintained those lines throughout trial with a couple of exceptions where there was a little bit\n7 of door opening and the like, but I don't have in mind, yes, they made the argument that Epstein's death is a factor in the\n8 motivation for the changing the stories, which is what I said was -- to the extent that arguments go to the credibility of\n9 witnesses, that's where I drew the line.\n10 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. I was referring to the argument early in Ms. Menninger's summation about I took to\n11 mean an argument that the government was substituting Ms. Maxwell for Mr. Epstein. Again, we want to review the\n12 transcript, but that's how we heard it.\n13 There were also arguments throughout summation about the victims doing that, which I understand the Court has ruled\n14 on that there is a difference between those two, but we think where that crosses the line is an argument where the government\n15 is doing that.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014559",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Ms. Menninger",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Mr. Epstein",
      "Ms. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "767",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014559"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}