mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00016750.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "21",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 21 of 197\nLCFmax1\n1 repeatedly relied on rule 613(a), which uses different language\n2 and is about impeachment by prior inconsistent statement on\n3 cross examination, not introduction of a prior statement as\n4 extrinsic evidence as it seeks to do here.\n5 So the opportunity to explain the statement should\n6 consist of something more than just the opportunity to admit or\n7 deny making the statement. That's right in Miller, 28 Federal\n8 Practice and Procedure Evidence, Section 6205, Note 1, Second\n9 Edition 2021. Citing a Seventh Circuit case and an Eleventh\n10 Circuit case.\n11 Now I'm going to quote from Gulani again. A trial\n12 court has discretion to require satisfaction of the latter\n13 requirement before the extrinsic evidence is offered or\n14 alternatively to permit it to be satisfied by recalling the\n15 witness after the extrinsic evidence is received.\n16 In a case called Surdow, S-u-r-d-o-w, the Second\n17 Circuit stated that the district court has broad discretion to\n18 exclude extrinsic impeachment evidence that was not revealed\n19 while the witness was on the stand or at least before the\n20 witness was permitted to leave the court. That's United States\n21 v. Surdow, 121 F.Appx. 898 (2d Cir. 2005), collecting\n22 authorities.\n23 Therefore, the Court will sustain the government's\n24 objection as to all proposed prior inconsistent statements to\n25 which the witness was not presented with the statement to\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00016750",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 21 of 197",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LCFmax1\n1 repeatedly relied on rule 613(a), which uses different language\n2 and is about impeachment by prior inconsistent statement on\n3 cross examination, not introduction of a prior statement as\n4 extrinsic evidence as it seeks to do here.\n5 So the opportunity to explain the statement should\n6 consist of something more than just the opportunity to admit or\n7 deny making the statement. That's right in Miller, 28 Federal\n8 Practice and Procedure Evidence, Section 6205, Note 1, Second\n9 Edition 2021. Citing a Seventh Circuit case and an Eleventh\n10 Circuit case.\n11 Now I'm going to quote from Gulani again. A trial\n12 court has discretion to require satisfaction of the latter\n13 requirement before the extrinsic evidence is offered or\n14 alternatively to permit it to be satisfied by recalling the\n15 witness after the extrinsic evidence is received.\n16 In a case called Surdow, S-u-r-d-o-w, the Second\n17 Circuit stated that the district court has broad discretion to\n18 exclude extrinsic impeachment evidence that was not revealed\n19 while the witness was on the stand or at least before the\n20 witness was permitted to leave the court. That's United States\n21 v. Surdow, 121 F.Appx. 898 (2d Cir. 2005), collecting\n22 authorities.\n23 Therefore, the Court will sustain the government's\n24 objection as to all proposed prior inconsistent statements to\n25 which the witness was not presented with the statement to",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00016750",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Seventh Circuit",
      "Eleventh Circuit",
      "Second Circuit",
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "763",
      "613(a)",
      "6205",
      "121 F.Appx. 898",
      "DOJ-OGR-00016750"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The content discusses legal procedures and cites various court cases."
}