{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "706",
    "date": "07/12/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 706 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 12\nand\n- Testimony from John Lopez about undisclosed exhibits.\nI. Applicable Law\nFederal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that \"[i]rrelevant evidence is not admissible.\" Accordingly, any evidence that does not bear on the defendant's guilt or innocence of the charges in the indictment should be excluded as irrelevant. Rule 403 further states that the Court may \"exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.\"\nAs a general matter, \"extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct in order to attack or support the witness's character for truthfulness.\" Fed. R. Evid. 608(b). The Rules permit extrinsic evidence for \"other grounds of impeachment (such as contradiction, prior inconsistent statement, bias, and mental capacity).\" United States v. Johnson, 469 F. Supp. 3d 193, 227 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) Advisory Committee Notes). But even then, \"[e]xtrinsic evidence offered for impeachment on a collateral issue is properly excluded.\" United States v. Purdy, 144 F.3d 241, 245-46 (2d Cir. 1998); see United Sates v. Dore, No. 12 Cr. 45 (RJS), 2013 WL 3965281, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2013) (Sullivan, J.) (\"[T]he Second Circuit has held . . . that introduction of extrinsic proof of a prior inconsistent statement is only appropriate as it relates to matters which are not collateral, i.e., as to those matters which are relevant to the issues in the case and could be independently proven.\" (internal quotation marks omitted)).\nSpecifically, while the doctrine of \"impeachment by contradiction . . . operates as a limited\n2\nDOJ-OGR-00011254",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 706 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 12",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "and\n- Testimony from John Lopez about undisclosed exhibits.\nI. Applicable Law",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that \"[i]rrelevant evidence is not admissible.\" Accordingly, any evidence that does not bear on the defendant's guilt or innocence of the charges in the indictment should be excluded as irrelevant. Rule 403 further states that the Court may \"exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.\"",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As a general matter, \"extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct in order to attack or support the witness's character for truthfulness.\" Fed. R. Evid. 608(b). The Rules permit extrinsic evidence for \"other grounds of impeachment (such as contradiction, prior inconsistent statement, bias, and mental capacity).\" United States v. Johnson, 469 F. Supp. 3d 193, 227 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) Advisory Committee Notes). But even then, \"[e]xtrinsic evidence offered for impeachment on a collateral issue is properly excluded.\" United States v. Purdy, 144 F.3d 241, 245-46 (2d Cir. 1998); see United Sates v. Dore, No. 12 Cr. 45 (RJS), 2013 WL 3965281, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2013) (Sullivan, J.) (\"[T]he Second Circuit has held . . . that introduction of extrinsic proof of a prior inconsistent statement is only appropriate as it relates to matters which are not collateral, i.e., as to those matters which are relevant to the issues in the case and could be independently proven.\" (internal quotation marks omitted)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Specifically, while the doctrine of \"impeachment by contradiction . . . operates as a limited",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011254",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "John Lopez",
      "Johnson",
      "Purdy",
      "Dore",
      "Sullivan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/12/22",
      "July 31, 2013"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 706",
      "12 Cr. 45 (RJS)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011254"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}