mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008106.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "21",
    "document_number": "508",
    "date": "11/24/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 508 Filed 11/24/21 Page 21 of 25\nF.3d at 246 (\"[U]nless an exception applies, all 'relevant evidence is admissible.'\" (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 402)).\nFinally, the nature and timing of disclosures are also admissible in response to Dr. Rocchio's testimony about delayed and partial disclosure.\n6. Conclusion.\nCross-examination is \"the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of [her] testimony are tested.\" Davis, 415 U.S. at 316. And in our adversarial system, the government cannot shield its case from being tested. A defendant has a constitutional right to present a defense. Crane, 476 U.S. at 690.\nThe government's case significantly depends on the credibility of , since no physical evidence corroborates her allegations and because she is the named victim for several of the counts. Where, as here, the defendant intends to cross-examine an essential government witness, one who \"provid[es] an essential link in the prosecution's case, the importance of full cross-examination to disclose possible bias is necessarily increased.\" Greene v. Wainwright, 634 F.2d 272, 275 (5th Cir. 1981). And as the Tenth Circuit has recognized in reversing a conviction because the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to question a government witness about his mental health conditions and drug use, \"[i]t is just as reasonable that a jury be informed of a witness's mental incapacity at a time about which he proposes to testify as it would be for the jury to know that he then suffered an impairment of sight or hearing.\" Robinson, 583 F.3d at 1275.\nII. Professor Gershman's Testimony is Admissible.\nThe government wrongly asserts that Professor Gershman's testimony \"is relevant only to the defense theories that the Court has excluded.\" Mot. at 20. In ruling on the motions in limine, the Court expressly declined to prohibit Ms. Maxwell from challenging the consistency\n17\nDOJ-OGR-00008106",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 508 Filed 11/24/21 Page 21 of 25",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "F.3d at 246 (\"[U]nless an exception applies, all 'relevant evidence is admissible.'\" (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 402)).\nFinally, the nature and timing of disclosures are also admissible in response to Dr. Rocchio's testimony about delayed and partial disclosure.\n6. Conclusion.\nCross-examination is \"the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of [her] testimony are tested.\" Davis, 415 U.S. at 316. And in our adversarial system, the government cannot shield its case from being tested. A defendant has a constitutional right to present a defense. Crane, 476 U.S. at 690.\nThe government's case significantly depends on the credibility of , since no physical evidence corroborates her allegations and because she is the named victim for several of the counts. Where, as here, the defendant intends to cross-examine an essential government witness, one who \"provid[es] an essential link in the prosecution's case, the importance of full cross-examination to disclose possible bias is necessarily increased.\" Greene v. Wainwright, 634 F.2d 272, 275 (5th Cir. 1981). And as the Tenth Circuit has recognized in reversing a conviction because the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to question a government witness about his mental health conditions and drug use, \"[i]t is just as reasonable that a jury be informed of a witness's mental incapacity at a time about which he proposes to testify as it would be for the jury to know that he then suffered an impairment of sight or hearing.\" Robinson, 583 F.3d at 1275.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. Professor Gershman's Testimony is Admissible.\nThe government wrongly asserts that Professor Gershman's testimony \"is relevant only to the defense theories that the Court has excluded.\" Mot. at 20. In ruling on the motions in limine, the Court expressly declined to prohibit Ms. Maxwell from challenging the consistency",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008106",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Rocchio",
      "Professor Gershman",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Tenth Circuit",
      "5th Cir."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/24/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 508",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008106"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The redactions are likely related to sensitive information or witness identities."
}