{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "24",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 24 of 197 2565\nLCFCmax1\n1 Transcript at 471, sustained. As I said at the time, the timeframe of that question was too unclear to create an inconsistency and no statement was presented to Jane to explain or deny it.\n5 Transcript at 473 to 74, overruled. That's provided admissible evidence either via stipulation or a witness is used to prove the notes.\n8 Transcript at 475, sustained. Jane's prior statement was that she was not sure where the incident happened, so there is no inconsistency. She also answered \"I don't recall\" to each question, so there is no inconsistency.\n12 Transcript 475 to 76, I'll sustain. The defense's questions did not track the 302 report, does not refer to whether the defendant touched Jane or not. The defense referred Jane to the December 2019 interview document, but then asked questions about the February 2020 interview. So there is an inadequate basis for inconsistency.\n18 Transcript at 476, lines 2 through 4, sustained. Again, the defense referred Jane to the incorrect interview and for the statement it now seeks to admit in Jane's statement that she doesn't recall, she said she was not sure is not an inconsistency.\n23 Transcript at 476, lines 8 through 10, sustained. The question follows the above entry and again fails to properly orient Jane, and Jane said \"I don't recall,\" which is not\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014130",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 24 of 197 2565",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LCFCmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Transcript at 471, sustained. As I said at the time, the timeframe of that question was too unclear to create an inconsistency and no statement was presented to Jane to explain or deny it.\n5 Transcript at 473 to 74, overruled. That's provided admissible evidence either via stipulation or a witness is used to prove the notes.\n8 Transcript at 475, sustained. Jane's prior statement was that she was not sure where the incident happened, so there is no inconsistency. She also answered \"I don't recall\" to each question, so there is no inconsistency.\n12 Transcript 475 to 76, I'll sustain. The defense's questions did not track the 302 report, does not refer to whether the defendant touched Jane or not. The defense referred Jane to the December 2019 interview document, but then asked questions about the February 2020 interview. So there is an inadequate basis for inconsistency.\n18 Transcript at 476, lines 2 through 4, sustained. Again, the defense referred Jane to the incorrect interview and for the statement it now seeks to admit in Jane's statement that she doesn't recall, she said she was not sure is not an inconsistency.\n23 Transcript at 476, lines 8 through 10, sustained. The question follows the above entry and again fails to properly orient Jane, and Jane said \"I don't recall,\" which is not",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014130",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "December 2019",
      "February 2020",
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014130"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}