mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014560.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "160",
    "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 160 of 257 LCKCmax7\n\nTHE COURT: I don't recall hearing a crossing of the line, but I'll step down and you can point me to language and, again, they're about to get the instruction, so I'm not going to give an instruction that's a repetition about what I'm about to instruct them. We'll break for five.\n(Recess)\nTHE COURT: Yes.\nMR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, with the benefit of the break, the government has honed its request and basis for it. So, as Ms. Moe said, we think there was several assertions which were not in the record, but the clearest one perhaps is Ms. Menninger's arguments about the way interviews were conducted in this case.\nThe Court will recall we had extended discussion about that when Special Agent Young was on the stand on Friday, Ms. Comey asked a question and the Court said that if Ms. Comey, in fact, asked the question and got the answer, it opened the door to evidence about how the interviews were conducted.\nTHE COURT: It was referencing the cross examination of the witnesses themselves regarding how they were questioned in the interviews and the prior interviews. That was the evidentiary basis for those comments. Overruled.\nAnything else?\nMR. ROHRBACH: Nothing else from the government, your\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014560",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 767 Filed 08/10/22 Page 160 of 257 LCKCmax7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "THE COURT: I don't recall hearing a crossing of the line, but I'll step down and you can point me to language and, again, they're about to get the instruction, so I'm not going to give an instruction that's a repetition about what I'm about to instruct them. We'll break for five.\n(Recess)\nTHE COURT: Yes.\nMR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, with the benefit of the break, the government has honed its request and basis for it. So, as Ms. Moe said, we think there was several assertions which were not in the record, but the clearest one perhaps is Ms. Menninger's arguments about the way interviews were conducted in this case.\nThe Court will recall we had extended discussion about that when Special Agent Young was on the stand on Friday, Ms. Comey asked a question and the Court said that if Ms. Comey, in fact, asked the question and got the answer, it opened the door to evidence about how the interviews were conducted.\nTHE COURT: It was referencing the cross examination of the witnesses themselves regarding how they were questioned in the interviews and the prior interviews. That was the evidentiary basis for those comments. Overruled.\nAnything else?\nMR. ROHRBACH: Nothing else from the government, your",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014560",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Moe",
      "Ms. Menninger",
      "Special Agent Young",
      "Ms. Comey",
      "MR. ROHRBACH"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "Friday"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "767",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014560"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}