mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011255.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "706",
    "date": "07/12/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 706 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 12\nexception to Rule 608(b),\" United States v. Ramirez, 609 F.3d 495, 499 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted), it is permitted in only narrow circumstances. As an initial matter, impeachment by contradiction is only available when a witness \"in his direct testimony falsely states a specific fact.\" United States v. Garcia, 900 F.2d 571, 575 (2d Cir. 1990) (emphasis added); see also Ramirez, 609 F.3d at 500 n.1 (explaining the Court's \"reluctan[ce] to extend\" the impeachment-by-contradiction doctrine to the situation where the testimony to be contradicted is first elicited on cross-examination); United States v. Benedetto, 571 F.2d 1246, 1250 (2d Cir. 1978) (impeachment by contradiction available after a witness testifies to a \"specific fact on direct testimony\" (emphasis added)); Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Procedure § 6119 (explaining that \"if the cross-examiner is able to open the door for himself on cross, this would undermine the exclusionary rules avoided, such as Rule 608(b)\"). Accordingly, if a party elicits a statement on cross-examination that did not come out on direct examination, the party is bound by the answer and may not offer extrinsic evidence to contradict it. See United States v. Crowley, 318 F.3d 401, 416 (2d Cir. 2003) (explaining that defense counsel could inquire on cross about alleged false accusations by a victim whose credibility was \"obviously a critical issue at trial,\" but could not offer extrinsic evidence to refute denials); Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 608.22[1] (2d ed. 1997) (noting that, under Rule 608(b), if a witness denies having engaged in alleged untruthful conduct on cross-examination, \"the examiner must take (or is bound by) the witness's answer\"). Impeachment by contradiction, like other bases of impeachment, is not available \"on a collateral issue.\" United States v. Watts, No. 10 Cr. 627 (KAM), 2013 WL 5423748, at *28 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2013) (internal quotations omitted).",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 706 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 12\nexception to Rule 608(b),\" United States v. Ramirez, 609 F.3d 495, 499 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted), it is permitted in only narrow circumstances. As an initial matter, impeachment by contradiction is only available when a witness \"in his direct testimony falsely states a specific fact.\" United States v. Garcia, 900 F.2d 571, 575 (2d Cir. 1990) (emphasis added); see also Ramirez, 609 F.3d at 500 n.1 (explaining the Court's \"reluctan[ce] to extend\" the impeachment-by-contradiction doctrine to the situation where the testimony to be contradicted is first elicited on cross-examination); United States v. Benedetto, 571 F.2d 1246, 1250 (2d Cir. 1978) (impeachment by contradiction available after a witness testifies to a \"specific fact on direct testimony\" (emphasis added)); Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Procedure § 6119 (explaining that \"if the cross-examiner is able to open the door for himself on cross, this would undermine the exclusionary rules avoided, such as Rule 608(b)\"). Accordingly, if a party elicits a statement on cross-examination that did not come out on direct examination, the party is bound by the answer and may not offer extrinsic evidence to contradict it. See United States v. Crowley, 318 F.3d 401, 416 (2d Cir. 2003) (explaining that defense counsel could inquire on cross about alleged false accusations by a victim whose credibility was \"obviously a critical issue at trial,\" but could not offer extrinsic evidence to refute denials); Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 608.22[1] (2d ed. 1997) (noting that, under Rule 608(b), if a witness denies having engaged in alleged untruthful conduct on cross-examination, \"the examiner must take (or is bound by) the witness's answer\"). Impeachment by contradiction, like other bases of impeachment, is not available \"on a collateral issue.\" United States v. Watts, No. 10 Cr. 627 (KAM), 2013 WL 5423748, at *28 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2013) (internal quotations omitted).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011255",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ramirez",
      "Garcia",
      "Benedetto",
      "Crowley",
      "Watts",
      "Jack B. Weinstein",
      "Margaret A. Berger",
      "KAM"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/12/22",
      "Sept. 26, 2013"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 706",
      "609 F.3d 495",
      "900 F.2d 571",
      "571 F.2d 1246",
      "318 F.3d 401",
      "2013 WL 5423748",
      "10 Cr. 627 (KAM)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011255"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the rules of evidence and impeachment by contradiction. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}