mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00016749.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 20 of 197 2561 LCFCmax1\na pseudonym?\nMS. MENNINGER: No, it was not, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: Okay. Just wanted to ask that.\nSecond, the parties seeking to offer extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement must have laid a proper foundation for doing so by affording, A, the witness an opportunity to explain or deny the prior inconsistent statement; and B, the opposite party an opportunity to question the witness about it.\nThird, the extrinsic evidence of the prior inconsistent statement must be competent and otherwise admissible.\nFourth, the impeachment by prior inconsistent statement must relate to material rather than a collateral matter.\nFinally, even if all these requirements have been satisfied, the trial court nevertheless may exclude the extrinsic evidence under Rule 403 on an appropriate finding. That's United States v. Gulani, 761 F. Supp. 2d 114. (S.D.N.Y. 2011).\nAt issue first is step 2, whether the witness being impeached had an opportunity to explain or deny the statement.\nParties have diametrically opposed interpretations of this requirement, but in support of its position that the witness need not be shown the prior statement. The defense has\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 20 of 197 2561 LCFCmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "a pseudonym?\nMS. MENNINGER: No, it was not, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: Okay. Just wanted to ask that.\nSecond, the parties seeking to offer extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement must have laid a proper foundation for doing so by affording, A, the witness an opportunity to explain or deny the prior inconsistent statement; and B, the opposite party an opportunity to question the witness about it.\nThird, the extrinsic evidence of the prior inconsistent statement must be competent and otherwise admissible.\nFourth, the impeachment by prior inconsistent statement must relate to material rather than a collateral matter.\nFinally, even if all these requirements have been satisfied, the trial court nevertheless may exclude the extrinsic evidence under Rule 403 on an appropriate finding. That's United States v. Gulani, 761 F. Supp. 2d 114. (S.D.N.Y. 2011).\nAt issue first is step 2, whether the witness being impeached had an opportunity to explain or deny the statement.\nParties have diametrically opposed interpretations of this requirement, but in support of its position that the witness need not be shown the prior statement. The defense has",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MENNINGER"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "THE COURT"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "2011"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "763",
      "761 F. Supp. 2d 114"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}