mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00017612.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "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 3 of 264 409 LC1VMAX1\n1 And I still don't fully understand the photograph of the street\n2 that the witness read the line from saying, That's the address\n3 where we lived, how that's impeachment. That remains an open\n4 question in my mind.\n5 But otherwise, Mr. Rohrbach, do you disagree with\n6 anything I've just said as to the state of the law?\n7 MR. ROHRBACH: No, I think that's a correct\n8 statement of the law, your Honor.\n9 The issue with the photograph is it wasn't established\n10 that that satisfied any of the theories of impeachment; and so\n11 if the defense is offering it for some other purpose, that\n12 purpose would be part of the defense's case-in-chief and,\n13 therefore, subject to Rule 16 or an attack on the witness's\n14 character for truthfulness, which would be barred by 608.\n15 THE COURT: Right.\n16 But the, I'll charitably call it, theory offered\n17 yesterday that anything that's not part of the case-in-chief\n18 somehow then falls under 608 as extrinsic, you've walked away\n19 from that.\n20 MR. ROHRBACH: Yes -- the theory really is that it has\n21 to satisfy some proper basis of impeachment for extrinsic\n22 evidence. So it's true that there are more than two paths,\n23 yes, your Honor.\n24 THE COURT: All right. So just to get to the\n25 photograph, as I see it, the witness's testimony -- and tell\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00017612",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 3 of 264 409 LC1VMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 And I still don't fully understand the photograph of the street\n2 that the witness read the line from saying, That's the address\n3 where we lived, how that's impeachment. That remains an open\n4 question in my mind.\n5 But otherwise, Mr. Rohrbach, do you disagree with\n6 anything I've just said as to the state of the law?\n7 MR. ROHRBACH: No, I think that's a correct\n8 statement of the law, your Honor.\n9 The issue with the photograph is it wasn't established\n10 that that satisfied any of the theories of impeachment; and so\n11 if the defense is offering it for some other purpose, that\n12 purpose would be part of the defense's case-in-chief and,\n13 therefore, subject to Rule 16 or an attack on the witness's\n14 character for truthfulness, which would be barred by 608.\n15 THE COURT: Right.\n16 But the, I'll charitably call it, theory offered\n17 yesterday that anything that's not part of the case-in-chief\n18 somehow then falls under 608 as extrinsic, you've walked away\n19 from that.\n20 MR. ROHRBACH: Yes -- the theory really is that it has\n21 to satisfy some proper basis of impeachment for extrinsic\n22 evidence. So it's true that there are more than two paths,\n23 yes, your Honor.\n24 THE COURT: All right. So just to get to the\n25 photograph, as I see it, the witness's testimony -- and tell",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00017612",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Rohrbach"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "745",
      "DOJ-OGR-00017612"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}