{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "157",
    "document_number": "753",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 157 of 264 1583 LC7VMAX5 Carolyn - cross 1 that, my quick look at the case law is that I'm very unlikely to exclude, unless there was some knowing and full violation of the sequestration spirit, if details of -- significant details of Jane's testimony. But in the absence of that, I think what we have is ripe grounds for cross-examination with an opportunity for the defense to have at it. 7 MR. ROHRBACH: Yes, your Honor. 8 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor I looked at some recent case law, and I imagine your Honor has seen similar cases. But one was Judge Engelmayer's decision in Teman. And there are some significant reasons why this case is much different than the decision he reached in that case, including the fact that was a conversation between the government and a witness rather than -- he distinguished the other cases, which were a witness speaking to another witness. 15 THE COURT: There was no order in place for witnesses not to speak. It could have been requested, I suppose. It wasn't requested. I didn't put one in place. I never have. 19 And the reason is because if witnesses speak to each other, that's going to come out on cross, and boy is that going to look bad for the witnesses. 22 So I think that's probably where we are. I have looked at Teman. I looked at the rule. We'll keep looking at cases once we have the full factual record. 25 But it seems to me we're likely to be at a point where SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013170",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 157 of 264 1583",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "LC7VMAX5 Carolyn - cross",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 that, my quick look at the case law is that I'm very unlikely to exclude, unless there was some knowing and full violation of the sequestration spirit, if details of -- significant details of Jane's testimony. But in the absence of that, I think what we have is ripe grounds for cross-examination with an opportunity for the defense to have at it. 7 MR. ROHRBACH: Yes, your Honor. 8 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor I looked at some recent case law, and I imagine your Honor has seen similar cases. But one was Judge Engelmayer's decision in Teman. And there are some significant reasons why this case is much different than the decision he reached in that case, including the fact that was a conversation between the government and a witness rather than -- he distinguished the other cases, which were a witness speaking to another witness. 15 THE COURT: There was no order in place for witnesses not to speak. It could have been requested, I suppose. It wasn't requested. I didn't put one in place. I never have. 19 And the reason is because if witnesses speak to each other, that's going to come out on cross, and boy is that going to look bad for the witnesses. 22 So I think that's probably where we are. I have looked at Teman. I looked at the rule. We'll keep looking at cases once we have the full factual record. 25 But it seems to me we're likely to be at a point where",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013170",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "MR. ROHRBACH",
      "MS. MENNINGER",
      "Judge Engelmayer"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "753",
      "DOJ-OGR-00013170"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}