mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00016751.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "22",
    "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 22 of 197 2563 LCFCmax1\nexplain or deny it.\nNext at issue is the first step of whether the witness's testimony and the prior statement are inconsistent. I provide the following guidance before we turn to the specifics.\nFirst, if the statement was presented to the witness and the witness admitted to making the statement, then extrinsic evidence is inappropriate, and the parties apparently agree on this point in their last two letters as do circuit courts who have decided the issue. That's true for the Fifth Circuit, Sixth Circuit, and Tenth Circuit.\nSecond, the prior inconsistent statement must actually be the witness's statement to show an inconsistency. United States v. Almonte, 956 F.2d 27, (2d Cir. 1992).\nWhere the defense relies on a third party's characterization of the witness's words rather than a verbatim transcript, then the witness must have subscribed to that characterization. On that basis, notes taken in law enforcement interviews will generally not prove an inconsistency for purposes of rule 613(b). See, for example, United States v. Leonardi, 623 F.2d 746, the Gulani case and others.\nOf course, that infirmity is solved by calling the interviewing officer as a witness or to avoid calling another witness, the government stipulates to the accuracy of the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00016751",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 22 of 197 2563 LCFCmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "explain or deny it.\nNext at issue is the first step of whether the witness's testimony and the prior statement are inconsistent. I provide the following guidance before we turn to the specifics.\nFirst, if the statement was presented to the witness and the witness admitted to making the statement, then extrinsic evidence is inappropriate, and the parties apparently agree on this point in their last two letters as do circuit courts who have decided the issue. That's true for the Fifth Circuit, Sixth Circuit, and Tenth Circuit.\nSecond, the prior inconsistent statement must actually be the witness's statement to show an inconsistency. United States v. Almonte, 956 F.2d 27, (2d Cir. 1992).\nWhere the defense relies on a third party's characterization of the witness's words rather than a verbatim transcript, then the witness must have subscribed to that characterization. On that basis, notes taken in law enforcement interviews will generally not prove an inconsistency for purposes of rule 613(b). See, for example, United States v. Leonardi, 623 F.2d 746, the Gulani case and others.\nOf course, that infirmity is solved by calling the interviewing officer as a witness or to avoid calling another witness, the government stipulates to the accuracy of the",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00016751",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00016751"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. It is typed and contains legal terminology and references to court cases. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}