mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00017595.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "233",
    "document_number": "743",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 743 Filed 08/10/22 Page 233 of 247 392 LBUCmax7\n3, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: How did page 3 impeach?\nMS. MENNINGER: Because it shows the house and the street that she lives on which is very different from what she described as her childhood home. She said we were homeless.\nMS. COMEY: Your Honor, A, that's not accurate, and B, I think it is a clear violation of Rule 408(b). They're trying to offer extrinsic evidence. It's not a prior inconsistent statement. It's not something that falls under the criminal convictions contemplated by Rule 609. This is clearly precluded by the rules of evidence.\nTHE COURT: I'll sustain. What's next?\nMS. MENNINGER: On what grounds, your Honor? On a Rule 16 violation?\nTHE COURT: Rule 16. She recognized the street. The document is a current photograph. She seemed to me that she recognized the street because the document indicated the street on it. She was reading the document. So also not impeaching.\nMS. MENNINGER: We'll find another way to introduce it, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: I'm sorry, can you --\nMS. MENNINGER: We will try to find another way to introduce it.\nTHE COURT: Okay.\nMS. COMEY: Your Honor, to the extent it's going to be\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00017595",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 743 Filed 08/10/22 Page 233 of 247 392 LBUCmax7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: How did page 3 impeach?\nMS. MENNINGER: Because it shows the house and the street that she lives on which is very different from what she described as her childhood home. She said we were homeless.\nMS. COMEY: Your Honor, A, that's not accurate, and B, I think it is a clear violation of Rule 408(b). They're trying to offer extrinsic evidence. It's not a prior inconsistent statement. It's not something that falls under the criminal convictions contemplated by Rule 609. This is clearly precluded by the rules of evidence.\nTHE COURT: I'll sustain. What's next?\nMS. MENNINGER: On what grounds, your Honor? On a Rule 16 violation?\nTHE COURT: Rule 16. She recognized the street. The document is a current photograph. She seemed to me that she recognized the street because the document indicated the street on it. She was reading the document. So also not impeaching.\nMS. MENNINGER: We'll find another way to introduce it, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: I'm sorry, can you --\nMS. MENNINGER: We will try to find another way to introduce it.\nTHE COURT: Okay.\nMS. COMEY: Your Honor, to the extent it's going to be",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00017595",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MENNINGER",
      "MS. COMEY"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "743",
      "DOJ-OGR-00017595"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}