mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014722.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "775",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 775 Filed 08/10/22 Page 6 of 16 3152 LCSCMAXT\nrequest of the letter, but if I could make a brief record on that, it will not take very long.\nTHE COURT: Okay. And so there is the record that you made yesterday at the time the question came. There is the record that you put in the letter this morning that came in late -- early this morning that I reviewed this morning that we just discussed. So, to the extent you're seeking a third bite at the apple, go ahead.\nMR. EVERDELL: I'm simply looking to fill out the record. I understand it's been rejected by the Court.\nI think from the defense point of view, I think two things are very clear from this note. One is that the jury is considering whether or not they can convict Ms. Maxwell on the substantive offense in Count Four based solely on events that took place in New Mexico and traveled to and from New Mexico.\nTHE COURT: There are a number of assumptions in that that don't necessarily derive from the meaning of that letter, but I understand that is your position.\nMR. EVERDELL: Understood, your Honor.\nAnd I think the second point is that they are looking at the instructions that they have been given thus far because they reference the second element of Count Four. So they're looking at that instruction and they are unclear, they are confused by those instructions. They are not sure whether or not -- those instructions don't inform them that, in fact,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 775 Filed 08/10/22 Page 6 of 16 3152 LCSCMAXT",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "request of the letter, but if I could make a brief record on that, it will not take very long.\nTHE COURT: Okay. And so there is the record that you made yesterday at the time the question came. There is the record that you put in the letter this morning that came in late -- early this morning that I reviewed this morning that we just discussed. So, to the extent you're seeking a third bite at the apple, go ahead.\nMR. EVERDELL: I'm simply looking to fill out the record. I understand it's been rejected by the Court.\nI think from the defense point of view, I think two things are very clear from this note. One is that the jury is considering whether or not they can convict Ms. Maxwell on the substantive offense in Count Four based solely on events that took place in New Mexico and traveled to and from New Mexico.\nTHE COURT: There are a number of assumptions in that that don't necessarily derive from the meaning of that letter, but I understand that is your position.\nMR. EVERDELL: Understood, your Honor.\nAnd I think the second point is that they are looking at the instructions that they have been given thus far because they reference the second element of Count Four. So they're looking at that instruction and they are unclear, they are confused by those instructions. They are not sure whether or not -- those instructions don't inform them that, in fact,",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ]
}