mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011438.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "732",
    "date": "07/14/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 732 Filed 07/14/22 Page 15 of 25\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 22, 2021 Page 15\n\nFinally, \"evidence that a party lied during settlement negotiations may be admissible to impeach that party under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) when she later testifies at trial,\" Wright & Miller, 23 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid., § 5305 Scope—Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement or Contradiction, (2d ed., Apr. 2021 update), despite the language in Rule 408(a) saying compromise evidence is generally inadmissible to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction. As Wright & Miller recognize,\n\nevidence of false statement during compromise negotiations would not be barred by Rule 408(a)(2) if offered to impeach on the theory it is a specific instance of conduct probative of a witness' character for untruthfulness and, thus, potentially admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b). This is consistent with the language of Rule 408(b), which permits admission of false statements made in negotiations so long as offered for a purpose other than that addressed by Rule 408(a).\n\nWight & Miller, Fed. Prac & Proc. Evid., § 5310.\n\nConspicuously, the government does not assert that Rule 408 is an impediment to admissibility. As just explained, that is for good reason.\n\nE. The materials requested are not otherwise procurable.\n\n1. Payment Records.\n\nThe government does not claim the payment records are \"otherwise procurable.\" Gov. Mot. at 3. Instead, the government elides the proper inquiry, saying that the information in the payment records is otherwise procurable. Id. But that's not the question, and even if it were, the government is wrong.\n\nAccording to the government, the 3500 material includes statements from the accusers attesting to the amounts of money they received. Id. But the constitution does not require Ms. Maxwell to take her accusers' words for it. U.S. Const. amend. VI. She has a right to know\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011438",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 732 Filed 07/14/22 Page 15 of 25",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 22, 2021 Page 15",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, \"evidence that a party lied during settlement negotiations may be admissible to impeach that party under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) when she later testifies at trial,\" Wright & Miller, 23 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid., § 5305 Scope—Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement or Contradiction, (2d ed., Apr. 2021 update), despite the language in Rule 408(a) saying compromise evidence is generally inadmissible to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction. As Wright & Miller recognize,",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "evidence of false statement during compromise negotiations would not be barred by Rule 408(a)(2) if offered to impeach on the theory it is a specific instance of conduct probative of a witness' character for untruthfulness and, thus, potentially admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b). This is consistent with the language of Rule 408(b), which permits admission of false statements made in negotiations so long as offered for a purpose other than that addressed by Rule 408(a).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Wight & Miller, Fed. Prac & Proc. Evid., § 5310.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Conspicuously, the government does not assert that Rule 408 is an impediment to admissibility. As just explained, that is for good reason.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "E. The materials requested are not otherwise procurable.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. Payment Records.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government does not claim the payment records are \"otherwise procurable.\" Gov. Mot. at 3. Instead, the government elides the proper inquiry, saying that the information in the payment records is otherwise procurable. Id. But that's not the question, and even if it were, the government is wrong.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "According to the government, the 3500 material includes statements from the accusers attesting to the amounts of money they received. Id. But the constitution does not require Ms. Maxwell to take her accusers' words for it. U.S. Const. amend. VI. She has a right to know",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011438",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "November 22, 2021",
      "07/14/22",
      "Apr. 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "732",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011438"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}