{ "document_metadata": { "page_number": "67", "document_number": "759", "date": "08/10/22", "document_type": "court transcript", "has_handwriting": false, "has_stamps": false }, "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 67 of 267 2095 LCAVMAX2 A. Farmer - direct this witness at all, and it's extremely far afield. MS. MENNINGER: I can tell your Honor we're not challenging the statements that she had a foot massage, a body massage, and so forth. So there may be some of the details of her memory that are off, but we did not put in to challenge that she had those contacts. That's why we worded the limiting instruction \"the physical contact.\" And to use the word \"rape,\" when she's above the age of consent -- THE COURT: She's saying not raped. It's the opposite of raped. It's not raped. MS. MENNINGER: Well, your Honor -- THE COURT: I'll allow the question as a prior -- I'm overruling the objection because it's an anticipated prior consistent statement in which the credibility of all of the witnesses as to what occurred has been attacked. I don't think this needs to be sealed. MS. POMERANTZ: No. THE COURT: Okay. Not sealed. (Continued on next page) SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013658", "text_blocks": [ { "type": "printed", "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 759 Filed 08/10/22 Page 67 of 267 2095 LCAVMAX2 A. Farmer - direct", "position": "header" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "this witness at all, and it's extremely far afield. MS. MENNINGER: I can tell your Honor we're not challenging the statements that she had a foot massage, a body massage, and so forth. So there may be some of the details of her memory that are off, but we did not put in to challenge that she had those contacts. That's why we worded the limiting instruction \"the physical contact.\" And to use the word \"rape,\" when she's above the age of consent -- THE COURT: She's saying not raped. It's the opposite of raped. It's not raped. MS. MENNINGER: Well, your Honor -- THE COURT: I'll allow the question as a prior -- I'm overruling the objection because it's an anticipated prior consistent statement in which the credibility of all of the witnesses as to what occurred has been attacked. I don't think this needs to be sealed. MS. POMERANTZ: No. THE COURT: Okay. Not sealed. (Continued on next page)", "position": "main" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300", "position": "footer" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013658", "position": "footer" } ], "entities": { "people": [ "MS. MENNINGER", "MS. POMERANTZ" ], "organizations": [ "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C." ], "locations": [], "dates": [ "08/10/22" ], "reference_numbers": [ "1:20-cr-00330-PAE", "759", "DOJ-OGR-00013658" ] }, "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage." }