mirror of
https://github.com/epstein-docs/epstein-docs.github.io.git
synced 2025-12-10 04:01:31 -06:00
59 lines
4.2 KiB
JSON
59 lines
4.2 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"document_metadata": {
|
|
"page_number": "83",
|
|
"document_number": "A-5926",
|
|
"date": "08/24/22",
|
|
"document_type": "court document",
|
|
"has_handwriting": false,
|
|
"has_stamps": false
|
|
},
|
|
"full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00336-PAE Document 616 Filed 08/24/22 Page 83 of 117\nA-5926\n\nCAC3PARC 24\n1 Mr. Shechtman, do you want to be heard further?\n2 MR. SHECHTMAN: I will and I will try to be brief,\n3 Judge. I think really four points. The government has\n4 repeated at the argument here what it said in its brief. Which\n5 was that Mr. Parse benefited from the strategic choice that his\n6 clients made and I'll hold the strategic choice point for\n7 second. But I take that to mean that he got acquitted here\n8 because she was on the jury. And that, my father used to say\n9 arguments were nonsense on stilts, and that is nonsense on\n10 stilts. I mean, your Honor knows exactly what happened here.\n11 There was a partisan in the jury room, a woman who couldn't\n12 follow instructions and the like. Your opinion couldn't be\n13 stronger on the point. And she was fighting the good fight to\n14 convict him on 100 percent.\n15 So to say we got the benefit of having her on there\n16 because we were acquitted isn't worthy, respectfully, of the\n17 government.\n18 And the related point this was a split verdict, it is\n19 a split verdict because she couldn't carry the ball as far as\n20 she wanted to, but not because Mr. Parse benefited by her\n21 presence.\n22 The second thing I'd say is this. I take it there are\n23 two competing visions of what happened here, and at the end of\n24 the day, your Honor is going to have to decide. One is that\n25 what happened in that court, your Honor, in the plaza, is that\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
|
|
"text_blocks": [
|
|
{
|
|
"type": "printed",
|
|
"content": "Case 1:20-cr-00336-PAE Document 616 Filed 08/24/22 Page 83 of 117",
|
|
"position": "header"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"type": "printed",
|
|
"content": "A-5926",
|
|
"position": "header"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"type": "printed",
|
|
"content": "CAC3PARC 24",
|
|
"position": "header"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"type": "printed",
|
|
"content": "1 Mr. Shechtman, do you want to be heard further?\n2 MR. SHECHTMAN: I will and I will try to be brief,\n3 Judge. I think really four points. The government has\n4 repeated at the argument here what it said in its brief. Which\n5 was that Mr. Parse benefited from the strategic choice that his\n6 clients made and I'll hold the strategic choice point for\n7 second. But I take that to mean that he got acquitted here\n8 because she was on the jury. And that, my father used to say\n9 arguments were nonsense on stilts, and that is nonsense on\n10 stilts. I mean, your Honor knows exactly what happened here.\n11 There was a partisan in the jury room, a woman who couldn't\n12 follow instructions and the like. Your opinion couldn't be\n13 stronger on the point. And she was fighting the good fight to\n14 convict him on 100 percent.\n15 So to say we got the benefit of having her on there\n16 because we were acquitted isn't worthy, respectfully, of the\n17 government.\n18 And the related point this was a split verdict, it is\n19 a split verdict because she couldn't carry the ball as far as\n20 she wanted to, but not because Mr. Parse benefited by her\n21 presence.\n22 The second thing I'd say is this. I take it there are\n23 two competing visions of what happened here, and at the end of\n24 the day, your Honor is going to have to decide. One is that\n25 what happened in that court, your Honor, in the plaza, is that",
|
|
"position": "main"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"type": "printed",
|
|
"content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
|
|
"position": "footer"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"entities": {
|
|
"people": [
|
|
"Mr. Shechtman",
|
|
"Mr. Parse"
|
|
],
|
|
"organizations": [
|
|
"SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
|
|
],
|
|
"locations": [
|
|
"the plaza"
|
|
],
|
|
"dates": [
|
|
"08/24/22"
|
|
],
|
|
"reference_numbers": [
|
|
"1:20-cr-00336-PAE",
|
|
"Document 616",
|
|
"A-5926"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
"additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
|
|
} |