mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014128.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "22",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 22 of 197 2563\n\nLCFCmax1\n\nexplain or deny it.\n\nNext at issue is the first step of whether the\nwitness's testimony and the prior statement are inconsistent.\nI provide the following guidance before we turn to the\nspecifics.\n\nFirst, if the statement was presented to the witness\nand the witness admitted to making the statement, then\nextrinsic evidence is inappropriate, and the parties apparently\nagree on this point in their last two letters as do circuit\ncourts who have decided the issue. That's true for the Fifth\nCircuit, Sixth Circuit, and Tenth Circuit.\n\nSecond, the prior inconsistent statement must actually\nbe the witness's statement to show an inconsistency. United\nStates v. Almonte, 956 F.2d 27, (2d Cir. 1992).\n\nWhere the defense relies on a third party's\ncharacterization of the witness's words rather than a verbatim\ntranscript, then the witness must have subsribed to that\ncharacterization. On that basis, notes taken in law\nenforcement interviews will generally not prove an\ninconsistency for purposes of rule 613(b). See, for example,\nUnited States v. Leonardi, 623 F.2d 746, the Gulani case and\nothers.\n\nOf course, that infirmity is solved by calling the\ninterviewing officer as a witness or to avoid calling another\nwitness, the government stipulates to the accuracy of the\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00014128",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 22 of 197 2563",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LCFCmax1\nexplain or deny it.\n\nNext at issue is the first step of whether the\nwitness's testimony and the prior statement are inconsistent.\nI provide the following guidance before we turn to the\nspecifics.\n\nFirst, if the statement was presented to the witness\nand the witness admitted to making the statement, then\nextrinsic evidence is inappropriate, and the parties apparently\nagree on this point in their last two letters as do circuit\ncourts who have decided the issue. That's true for the Fifth\nCircuit, Sixth Circuit, and Tenth Circuit.\n\nSecond, the prior inconsistent statement must actually\nbe the witness's statement to show an inconsistency. United\nStates v. Almonte, 956 F.2d 27, (2d Cir. 1992).\n\nWhere the defense relies on a third party's\ncharacterization of the witness's words rather than a verbatim\ntranscript, then the witness must have subsribed to that\ncharacterization. On that basis, notes taken in law\nenforcement interviews will generally not prove an\ninconsistency for purposes of rule 613(b). See, for example,\nUnited States v. Leonardi, 623 F.2d 746, the Gulani case and\nothers.\n\nOf course, that infirmity is solved by calling the\ninterviewing officer as a witness or to avoid calling another\nwitness, the government stipulates to the accuracy of the",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014128",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014128"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. It is typed and contains legal terminology and references to court cases. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}