mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00012878.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "127",
    "document_number": "751",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 127 of 261 1288 LC6VMAX4\n1 accurately about?\n2 MS. STERNHEIM: Well, at first she wasn't sure. And\n3 then when she saw it, she didn't deny it. But I think that it\n4 is a recording of her own email. There is no issue as to\n5 authenticity.\n6 THE COURT: It's not an authenticity objection; it's a\n7 hearsay objection.\n8 Again, I think her testimony would be described as she\n9 recalled it well enough to testify fully and accurately because\n10 it doesn't conflict with what's in here. So it's not the same\n11 analysis as prior inconsistent statement, but I think the\n12 initial question is what did she not testify to fully and\n13 accurately.\n14 MS. STERNHEIM: I just think it is corroborative of\n15 her testimony and more reliable than just coming from the stand\n16 when it is her own written statement to the co-conspirator in\n17 this case.\n18 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, that's not responsive to\n19 the question. And also, as the Court has noted, it just\n20 doesn't meet the standard that's articulated under 5A in terms\n21 of the question is whether it's on a matter that the witness\n22 once knew about, but now cannot recall well enough to testify\n23 fully and accurately. And that's just not the case here, your\n24 Honor.\n25 THE COURT: Okay.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00012878",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 127 of 261 1288 LC6VMAX4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 accurately about?\n2 MS. STERNHEIM: Well, at first she wasn't sure. And\n3 then when she saw it, she didn't deny it. But I think that it\n4 is a recording of her own email. There is no issue as to\n5 authenticity.\n6 THE COURT: It's not an authenticity objection; it's a\n7 hearsay objection.\n8 Again, I think her testimony would be described as she\n9 recalled it well enough to testify fully and accurately because\n10 it doesn't conflict with what's in here. So it's not the same\n11 analysis as prior inconsistent statement, but I think the\n12 initial question is what did she not testify to fully and\n13 accurately.\n14 MS. STERNHEIM: I just think it is corroborative of\n15 her testimony and more reliable than just coming from the stand\n16 when it is her own written statement to the co-conspirator in\n17 this case.\n18 MS. POMERANTZ: Your Honor, that's not responsive to\n19 the question. And also, as the Court has noted, it just\n20 doesn't meet the standard that's articulated under 5A in terms\n21 of the question is whether it's on a matter that the witness\n22 once knew about, but now cannot recall well enough to testify\n23 fully and accurately. And that's just not the case here, your\n24 Honor.\n25 THE COURT: Okay.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012878",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. STERNHEIM",
      "MS. POMERANTZ",
      "THE COURT"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "751",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012878"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}