{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "703",
    "date": "07/12/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703 Filed 07/12/22 Page 5 of 7\n\nshould preclude the defendant from offering the agreement now in her case-in chief.\n\nFirst, the agreement was in the defendant's possession, custody, and control long before trial. The sale agreement is a contract between the defendant herself and third parties. If a copy of the agreement was not in her personal possession, it surely was obtainable through her counsel in that transaction—who is expected to testify at trial.\n\nSecond, as noted, the theory of relevance for the sale agreement that the Government anticipates has been clear since long before the defendant's Rule 16 deadline. The Government expects that the defendant will try to use the agreement to show that she did not purchase the townhome on Kinnerton Street until January 1997. Kate testified that she visited that home in 1994, when she was 17. (Tr. 1176).\n\nKate's testimony was not a surprise to the defense. Kate described the home in an interview with the Government on September 1, 2021, a report of which was produced to the defense on October 11. See 3513-037 at 8 (FBI 302); 3513-038 at 12 (underlying notes). Although Kate did not give the street address, she identified the house's location as across the street from the Nags Head Pub. That fact did not go unnoticed by the defense, which made a point of confirming with Kate on cross examination specifically that the defendant lived on Kinnerton Street across from the Nags Head Pub—twice. Tr. 1235, 1253-54. Even before the Government produced its 3500 material, the defense previewed its view that Kate's timeline is incorrect and she was older at the time of certain events than she testified she was. See 11/01/21 Tr. at 89 (\"It's quite possible, in fact likely, that [Kate] is older than [17].\"). The defense has been planning to challenge Kate's testimony on this point for quite some time, and it knew that Kate said she visited the Kinnerton Street home. Yet the defense did not produce the sale agreement in its Rule 16 production.\n\n5\nDOJ-OGR-00011210",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703 Filed 07/12/22 Page 5 of 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "should preclude the defendant from offering the agreement now in her case-in chief.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, the agreement was in the defendant's possession, custody, and control long before trial. The sale agreement is a contract between the defendant herself and third parties. If a copy of the agreement was not in her personal possession, it surely was obtainable through her counsel in that transaction—who is expected to testify at trial.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, as noted, the theory of relevance for the sale agreement that the Government anticipates has been clear since long before the defendant's Rule 16 deadline. The Government expects that the defendant will try to use the agreement to show that she did not purchase the townhome on Kinnerton Street until January 1997. Kate testified that she visited that home in 1994, when she was 17. (Tr. 1176).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Kate's testimony was not a surprise to the defense. Kate described the home in an interview with the Government on September 1, 2021, a report of which was produced to the defense on October 11. See 3513-037 at 8 (FBI 302); 3513-038 at 12 (underlying notes). Although Kate did not give the street address, she identified the house's location as across the street from the Nags Head Pub. That fact did not go unnoticed by the defense, which made a point of confirming with Kate on cross examination specifically that the defendant lived on Kinnerton Street across from the Nags Head Pub—twice. Tr. 1235, 1253-54. Even before the Government produced its 3500 material, the defense previewed its view that Kate's timeline is incorrect and she was older at the time of certain events than she testified she was. See 11/01/21 Tr. at 89 (\"It's quite possible, in fact likely, that [Kate] is older than [17].\"). The defense has been planning to challenge Kate's testimony on this point for quite some time, and it knew that Kate said she visited the Kinnerton Street home. Yet the defense did not produce the sale agreement in its Rule 16 production.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011210",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Kate",
      "defendant"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "FBI"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Kinnerton Street",
      "Nags Head Pub"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/12/22",
      "September 1, 2021",
      "October 11",
      "January 1997",
      "1994",
      "11/01/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "703",
      "3513-037",
      "3513-038",
      "Tr. 1176",
      "Tr. 1235",
      "Tr. 1253-54",
      "11/01/21 Tr. at 89",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011210"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 5 of 7."
}