mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00017611.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "745",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 2 of 264 LC1VMAX1\n\n(Trial resumed; jury not present)\nTHE COURT: All right. Matters to take up, counsel, includes the Rule 16/608, as I see it, issue. And then I want to see where you are in terms of working out anticipated personal identifying information of witnesses who I've given permission to testify under pseudonyms to protect their privacy.\nSo let's begin.\nMs. Menninger, did you want to begin with the Rule 16 issue?\nMS. MENNINGER: I think Mr. Everdell was going to handle that piece.\nTHE COURT: Okay.\nMs. Comey, are you taking this?\nMR. ROHRBACH: I'm taking this one, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: You all swapped off.\nSo I think the defense is clearly right that if we are talking by impeachment by contradiction, that is to say, impeachment, direct contradiction of something testified to on the stand, it's not required to be disclosed as case-in-chief material under Rule 16; and depending on what it is, it's likely not 608 because it's impeachment by contradiction, not impeachment to show -- extrinsic evidence to show a character for dishonesty and the like.\nSo the question is whether it's impeachment or not.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00017611",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 2 of 264 LC1VMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(Trial resumed; jury not present)\nTHE COURT: All right. Matters to take up, counsel, includes the Rule 16/608, as I see it, issue. And then I want to see where you are in terms of working out anticipated personal identifying information of witnesses who I've given permission to testify under pseudonyms to protect their privacy.\nSo let's begin.\nMs. Menninger, did you want to begin with the Rule 16 issue?\nMS. MENNINGER: I think Mr. Everdell was going to handle that piece.\nTHE COURT: Okay.\nMs. Comey, are you taking this?\nMR. ROHRBACH: I'm taking this one, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: You all swapped off.\nSo I think the defense is clearly right that if we are talking by impeachment by contradiction, that is to say, impeachment, direct contradiction of something testified to on the stand, it's not required to be disclosed as case-in-chief material under Rule 16; and depending on what it is, it's likely not 608 because it's impeachment by contradiction, not impeachment to show -- extrinsic evidence to show a character for dishonesty and the like.\nSo the question is whether it's impeachment or not.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00017611",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Menninger",
      "Mr. Everdell",
      "Ms. Comey",
      "Mr. Rohrbach"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "745",
      "DOJ-OGR-00017611"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}