{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "71",
    "document_number": "751",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 71 of 261 1232 LC6Cmax3\n\n1 (Recess)\n2 (Jury not present)\n3 THE COURT: Counsel, let me just finish up where I am\n4 before we get going.\n5 (At the sidebar)\n6 THE COURT: On the sexual harassment claim, I'm not\n7 going to allow it if there were a pattern of repeated\n8 allegations of the same kind, even if you didn't have a proffer\n9 as to falsity, then it would be a closer call, but in the\n10 absence of any proffer as to falsity and in light of the one\n11 instance of sexual harassment, I won't allow it.\n12 I think our other open on is the tabloid; correct?\n13 I'm going to allow that because there is a notion of exception\n14 of a friend which goes to the credibility and is impeachment.\n15 I think that resolves all of our open issues.\n16 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I wanted to note one thing\n17 that I had the chance to go back and look at some of the 3500\n18 material, and I know that there was planning to ask the witness\n19 about an unsigned declaration involving I think the witness's\n20 exhusband; is that right?\n21 MS. STERNHEIM: No, it has nothing to do with her\n22 exhusband. I was going to ask if she asked a friend or former\n23 person in her life if he had -- she had asked him to plant the\n24 drugs on the father of her child.\n25 MS. POMERANTZ: So I wanted to flag this because I had\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00012822",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 71 of 261 1232 LC6Cmax3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(Recess)\n(Jury not present)\nTHE COURT: Counsel, let me just finish up where I am\nbefore we get going.\n(At the sidebar)\nTHE COURT: On the sexual harassment claim, I'm not\ngoing to allow it if there were a pattern of repeated\nallegations of the same kind, even if you didn't have a proffer\nas to falsity, then it would be a closer call, but in the\nabsence of any proffer as to falsity and in light of the one\ninstance of sexual harassment, I won't allow it.\nI think our other open on is the tabloid; correct?\nI'm going to allow that because there is a notion of exception\nof a friend which goes to the credibility and is impeachment.\nI think that resolves all of our open issues.\nMS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, I wanted to note one thing\nthat I had the chance to go back and look at some of the 3500\nmaterial, and I know that there was planning to ask the witness\nabout an unsigned declaration involving I think the witness's\nexhusband; is that right?\nMS. STERNHEIM: No, it has nothing to do with her\nexhusband. I was going to ask if she asked a friend or former\nperson in her life if he had -- she had asked him to plant the\ndrugs on the father of her child.\nMS. POMERANTZ: So I wanted to flag this because I had",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012822",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. POMERANTZ",
      "MS. STERNHEIM"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "751",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012822"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}