mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014697.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "773",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 11 of 29 3128 LCRVMAXT respect to the second element. Beyond that, we're not able to parse the question because we find it confusing; so we think the safest course is to refer the jurors to the comprehensive instruction with respect to the second element. THE COURT: Mr. Everdell. MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think the answer to this question is no, and I'll tell you the rationale for this. As to the jurors' note, they've clearly separated out in their minds the flight to New Mexico versus the flight back from New Mexico. And in their minds, there still is a question, it would seem, that the flight -- whatever the purpose of the flight to New Mexico was, whether it was for illicit sexual activity or not, that is different from the purpose of the flight back from New Mexico. And they are asking can she be found guilty solely on if there's some aiding and abetting, some helping of that flight from New Mexico, which presumably the flight home they're saying. THE COURT: So the flight from New Mexico to where? MR. EVERDELL: Well, there is no record of a flight from New Mexico. But what they are saying, I think, in this note is they are separating out in their minds the flight to New Mexico versus whatever flight she may have taken from New Mexico. And I would say based on the instructions in the Court's instructions which the government pointed to, there has to be -- the significant or motivating purpose of the travel SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014697",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 773 Filed 08/10/22 Page 11 of 29 3128 LCRVMAXT",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "respect to the second element. Beyond that, we're not able to parse the question because we find it confusing; so we think the safest course is to refer the jurors to the comprehensive instruction with respect to the second element. THE COURT: Mr. Everdell. MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think the answer to this question is no, and I'll tell you the rationale for this. As to the jurors' note, they've clearly separated out in their minds the flight to New Mexico versus the flight back from New Mexico. And in their minds, there still is a question, it would seem, that the flight -- whatever the purpose of the flight to New Mexico was, whether it was for illicit sexual activity or not, that is different from the purpose of the flight back from New Mexico. And they are asking can she be found guilty solely on if there's some aiding and abetting, some helping of that flight from New Mexico, which presumably the flight home they're saying. THE COURT: So the flight from New Mexico to where? MR. EVERDELL: Well, there is no record of a flight from New Mexico. But what they are saying, I think, in this note is they are separating out in their minds the flight to New Mexico versus whatever flight she may have taken from New Mexico. And I would say based on the instructions in the Court's instructions which the government pointed to, there has to be -- the significant or motivating purpose of the travel",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014697",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Everdell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New Mexico"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "773",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014697"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}