mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014724.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "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 8 of 16 3154 LCSCMAXT activity that occurred in New Mexico, that wouldn't be a sufficient basis to convict on Count Four or Count Two because it requires an intent to violate New York law, and you can't violate this section of New York law in New Mexico. So if that's all they're considered on a basis to convict on Count Four and Count Two, then that would be insufficient and improper, and that's why I think a supplemental instruction that clarifies that point is warranted in this case, but I understand the Court has rejected that. And that's all. THE COURT: I think the instruction is correct that I referred them to. The reading of the note that you've suggested, I have no idea if that's what the jury is asking or many other plausible readings, and what you've proposed, as you just indicated, would be incorrect. So, I think that's why precisely we sent them back to the charge. Anything else? MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor. THE COURT: As I said, we'll see where we are at the end of the day, but in light of the variant, my concern about interruption of trial, given the increasing daily risk of exposure to either a juror or trial participant requiring quarantine, it is time to think to have the jurors make plans to continue deliberating until a verdict is reached. I will wait until we hear from the jury, otherwise SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014724",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 775 Filed 08/10/22 Page 8 of 16 3154 LCSCMAXT",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "activity that occurred in New Mexico, that wouldn't be a sufficient basis to convict on Count Four or Count Two because it requires an intent to violate New York law, and you can't violate this section of New York law in New Mexico. So if that's all they're considered on a basis to convict on Count Four and Count Two, then that would be insufficient and improper, and that's why I think a supplemental instruction that clarifies that point is warranted in this case, but I understand the Court has rejected that. And that's all. THE COURT: I think the instruction is correct that I referred them to. The reading of the note that you've suggested, I have no idea if that's what the jury is asking or many other plausible readings, and what you've proposed, as you just indicated, would be incorrect. So, I think that's why precisely we sent them back to the charge. Anything else? MR. EVERDELL: No, your Honor. THE COURT: As I said, we'll see where we are at the end of the day, but in light of the variant, my concern about interruption of trial, given the increasing daily risk of exposure to either a juror or trial participant requiring quarantine, it is time to think to have the jurors make plans to continue deliberating until a verdict is reached. I will wait until we hear from the jury, otherwise",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014724",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New Mexico",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "775",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014724"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}