mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014642.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "242",
    "document_number": "767",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 767 Filed 08/10/22 Page 242 of 257\nLCKCmax9 Charge\n1 conclusion as to what they would have testified to had they been called. Their absence should not affect your judgment in any way.\n4 You should remember my instruction, however, that the law does not impose on the defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witness or producing any evidence.\n8 Instruction No. 51: Particular Investigative Techniques Not Required.\n10 You have heard reference, in the arguments of defense counsel in this case, to the fact that certain investigative techniques were used or not used by the government. There is no legal requirement, however, that the government prove its case through any particular means. Your concern is to determine whether or not on the evidence or lack of evidence the defendant's guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.\n18 Instruction No. 52: Use of Evidence From Searches.\n19 You have heard testimony about evidence seized in connection with certain searches conducted by law enforcement officers. Evidence obtained from these searches was properly admitted in this case and may be properly considered by you.\n23 Such searches were appropriate law enforcement actions.\n24 Whether you approve or disapprove of how the evidence was obtained should not enter into your deliberations because I\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014642",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 767 Filed 08/10/22 Page 242 of 257",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LCKCmax9 Charge",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 conclusion as to what they would have testified to had they been called. Their absence should not affect your judgment in any way.\n4 You should remember my instruction, however, that the law does not impose on the defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witness or producing any evidence.\n8 Instruction No. 51: Particular Investigative Techniques Not Required.\n10 You have heard reference, in the arguments of defense counsel in this case, to the fact that certain investigative techniques were used or not used by the government. There is no legal requirement, however, that the government prove its case through any particular means. Your concern is to determine whether or not on the evidence or lack of evidence the defendant's guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.\n18 Instruction No. 52: Use of Evidence From Searches.\n19 You have heard testimony about evidence seized in connection with certain searches conducted by law enforcement officers. Evidence obtained from these searches was properly admitted in this case and may be properly considered by you.\n23 Such searches were appropriate law enforcement actions.\n24 Whether you approve or disapprove of how the evidence was obtained should not enter into your deliberations because I",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014642",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "767",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014642"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. It is a printed document with no handwritten text or stamps. The content is related to jury instructions in a criminal case."
}