mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011148.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "692",
    "date": "11/22/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 10 of 17\n\nthe diagnoses in Dr. Hall's report are adequately tied to Alleged Victim 4's credibility as a witness. See Hamlett, 2021 WL 5105861, at *2.\n\nEven if any diagnosis were probative, the Court further finds that Rule 403 prejudice outweighs. First, the testimony may confuse jurors with old diagnoses that have little connection to the conduct at issue or Alleged Victim 4's credibility today. See id. Confusion is particularly likely here given that Dr. Hall's report is at times unclear and even contradictory, as with the confusion over explained above. Id. Second, the Court takes account of the risk that jurors will stereotype a witness with or incorrectly assume that a diagnosed mental condition renders the witness untrustworthy. See Hernandez, 2011 WL 2117611, at *5. Third, mental health diagnoses are of a particularly sensitive nature and, if not relevant, the witness's privacy should not be invaded. Paredes, 2001 WL 1478810, at *2 (citing In re Doe, 964 F.2d 1325, 1328-29 (2d Cir. 1992)).\n\nAnd fourth, Dr. Hall's testimony would be cumulative and cause undue delay. The Government anticipates that several aspects of Alleged Victim 4's mental health history will be admitted either on direct or cross-examination, including that Alleged Victim 4 currently The Second Circuit has previously held that where relevant issues of mental conditions can be aired on cross-examination, the district court may preclude the witness's medical records and expert testimony. Vitale, 459 F.3d at 196; Dupree, 833 F. Supp. 2d at 265 (applying Vitale and Sasso).\n\nThe Court concludes that here, the cross-examination identified by the Government on Alleged Victim 4's current medication for , along with lines of cross-examination unrelated to mental health, will provide the jury a sufficiently \"discriminating appraisal\" of Alleged Victim 4's credibility such that Dr. Hall's testimony and report is unnecessary. Drake v.\n\n10\nDOJ-OGR-00011148",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 10 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the diagnoses in Dr. Hall's report are adequately tied to Alleged Victim 4's credibility as a witness. See Hamlett, 2021 WL 5105861, at *2.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even if any diagnosis were probative, the Court further finds that Rule 403 prejudice outweighs. First, the testimony may confuse jurors with old diagnoses that have little connection to the conduct at issue or Alleged Victim 4's credibility today. See id. Confusion is particularly likely here given that Dr. Hall's report is at times unclear and even contradictory, as with the confusion over explained above. Id. Second, the Court takes account of the risk that jurors will stereotype a witness with or incorrectly assume that a diagnosed mental condition renders the witness untrustworthy. See Hernandez, 2011 WL 2117611, at *5. Third, mental health diagnoses are of a particularly sensitive nature and, if not relevant, the witness's privacy should not be invaded. Paredes, 2001 WL 1478810, at *2 (citing In re Doe, 964 F.2d 1325, 1328-29 (2d Cir. 1992)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "And fourth, Dr. Hall's testimony would be cumulative and cause undue delay. The Government anticipates that several aspects of Alleged Victim 4's mental health history will be admitted either on direct or cross-examination, including that Alleged Victim 4 currently The Second Circuit has previously held that where relevant issues of mental conditions can be aired on cross-examination, the district court may preclude the witness's medical records and expert testimony. Vitale, 459 F.3d at 196; Dupree, 833 F. Supp. 2d at 265 (applying Vitale and Sasso).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court concludes that here, the cross-examination identified by the Government on Alleged Victim 4's current medication for , along with lines of cross-examination unrelated to mental health, will provide the jury a sufficiently \"discriminating appraisal\" of Alleged Victim 4's credibility such that Dr. Hall's testimony and report is unnecessary. Drake v.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011148",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Hall",
      "Alleged Victim 4",
      "Hamlett",
      "Hernandez",
      "Paredes",
      "Doe",
      "Vitale",
      "Dupree",
      "Sasso",
      "Drake"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/22/21",
      "2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 692",
      "2021 WL 5105861",
      "2011 WL 2117611",
      "2001 WL 1478810",
      "964 F.2d 1325",
      "459 F.3d 196",
      "833 F. Supp. 2d 265",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011148"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The redactions are likely related to sensitive information about the alleged victim's mental health history and current medication."
}