mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00012230.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "210",
    "document_number": "745",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 210 of 264 621 LC1Qmax6 Jane - Redirect 1 MS. STERNHEIM: Right. 2 THE COURT: Okay. Can you confer? 3 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. 4 THE COURT: During the break? 5 MS. STERNHEIM: Of course. 6 THE COURT: Great. I appreciate you raising it, and let me know if there's disagreement. Thank you. 8 MS. STERNHEIM: Will do. 9 THE COURT: We'll break for ten. 10 (Recess) 11 (Jurors not present) 12 THE COURT: Matters to take up? 13 MS. MOE: Not from the government your Honor. 14 MS. STERNHEIM: Just very briefly, Judge. I did have an opportunity to confer with Ms. Moe. I just want to state for the record, with regard to the introduction of prior consistent statements, it is my understanding that there needs to be a similar exactitude as one would have with prior inconsistent statements, and I understand that the government is offering their next witness, Matt, to establish the fact that there was some colloquy discussion between Matt and Jane at an earlier time before this. I have no problem with that. 23 The issue is that, at least in the 3500 material, the statements that Matt made are not -- they don't dovetail entirely with what went on on the direct examination. One 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00012230",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 210 of 264 621 LC1Qmax6 Jane - Redirect",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 MS. STERNHEIM: Right. 2 THE COURT: Okay. Can you confer? 3 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. 4 THE COURT: During the break? 5 MS. STERNHEIM: Of course. 6 THE COURT: Great. I appreciate you raising it, and let me know if there's disagreement. Thank you. 8 MS. STERNHEIM: Will do. 9 THE COURT: We'll break for ten. 10 (Recess) 11 (Jurors not present) 12 THE COURT: Matters to take up? 13 MS. MOE: Not from the government your Honor. 14 MS. STERNHEIM: Just very briefly, Judge. I did have an opportunity to confer with Ms. Moe. I just want to state for the record, with regard to the introduction of prior consistent statements, it is my understanding that there needs to be a similar exactitude as one would have with prior inconsistent statements, and I understand that the government is offering their next witness, Matt, to establish the fact that there was some colloquy discussion between Matt and Jane at an earlier time before this. I have no problem with that. 23 The issue is that, at least in the 3500 material, the statements that Matt made are not -- they don't dovetail entirely with what went on on the direct examination. One",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00012230",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. STERNHEIM",
      "MS. MOE",
      "Matt",
      "Jane"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "745",
      "3500",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012230"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}