mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00016632.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "149",
    "document_number": "761",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 149 of 246 2444 LCGCmax4 Loftus - direct making an argument about witness bias, which is just, you know, we're not raising a Rule 16 objection, it's just to show the purpose for which this testimony is being used is extrinsic evidence to impeach Kate's testimony. MS. STERNHEIM: The papers that we filed last night specifically state the basis upon which we are seeking to introduce this. I made this available at the time of the testimony. It is dated at a time that occurred during the course of the trial related to the testimony of their witness. I don't see why it is a Rule 16 violation -- THE COURT: Well, I think they're not actually arguing that. So, Mr. Rohrbach, for the proposition that the denial can't be impeached by extrinsic evidence, cited Second Circuit case, United States v. Harvey, 547 F.2d 720, \"...that a cross examiner is not required to, quote, take the answer, end quote, of a witness concerning possible bias, but may proffer extrinsic evidence, including the testimony of other witnesses to prove the facts showing a bias in favor of or against a party. You agree that's the law, you're just saying that there is not an available inference to the jury of bias from the \"it fell into my lap.\" MR. ROHRBACH: That's right, your Honor. That inference only becomes available when that statement is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00016632",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 149 of 246 2444 LCGCmax4 Loftus - direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "making an argument about witness bias, which is just, you know, we're not raising a Rule 16 objection, it's just to show the purpose for which this testimony is being used is extrinsic evidence to impeach Kate's testimony. MS. STERNHEIM: The papers that we filed last night specifically state the basis upon which we are seeking to introduce this. I made this available at the time of the testimony. It is dated at a time that occurred during the course of the trial related to the testimony of their witness. I don't see why it is a Rule 16 violation -- THE COURT: Well, I think they're not actually arguing that. So, Mr. Rohrbach, for the proposition that the denial can't be impeached by extrinsic evidence, cited Second Circuit case, United States v. Harvey, 547 F.2d 720, \"...that a cross examiner is not required to, quote, take the answer, end quote, of a witness concerning possible bias, but may proffer extrinsic evidence, including the testimony of other witnesses to prove the facts showing a bias in favor of or against a party. You agree that's the law, you're just saying that there is not an available inference to the jury of bias from the \"it fell into my lap.\" MR. ROHRBACH: That's right, your Honor. That inference only becomes available when that statement is",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00016632",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Kate",
      "Mr. Rohrbach",
      "MS. STERNHEIM"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "761",
      "547 F.2d 720",
      "DOJ-OGR-00016632"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}