| 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253 |
- {
- "document_metadata": {
- "page_number": "3",
- "document_number": "753",
- "date": "08/10/22",
- "document_type": "court transcript",
- "has_handwriting": false,
- "has_stamps": false
- },
- "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 3 of 264 1425 LC7VMAX1 characterization of the defense attorney who cross-examined her, using an expletive that rhymes with \"front.\" And that was told to this witness, who is anticipated to be testifying today, who is obviously also subject to the Court's sequestration order. I am very troubled and disturbed that witnesses who are still subject to recall are calling other witnesses that they know will be called to testify; that will be called to testify about their memories of events that happened years ago; and that they are disclosing to witnesses -- this witness -- what they experienced on the witness stand, including a document that they were shown, your Honor. I am asking the Court to forbid the witness Brian from being called, given this violation. At a minimum, your Honor, I would ask that there is a hearing outside the presence of the jury in which Brian is subject to examination by the Court as to exactly what happened during this phone call. Those are the two pieces of information that he reported to the government and was reported to us via some handwritten notes at about 2 this morning. That's my request, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MS. MOE: Your Honor, there are only two legal principles at play here. The first is Rule 615 about excluding witnesses from a courtroom. Neither Brian nor Jane has been in the courtroom while other witnesses have testified. That rule SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013016",
- "text_blocks": [
- {
- "type": "printed",
- "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 3 of 264 1425 LC7VMAX1",
- "position": "header"
- },
- {
- "type": "printed",
- "content": "characterization of the defense attorney who cross-examined her, using an expletive that rhymes with \"front.\" And that was told to this witness, who is anticipated to be testifying today, who is obviously also subject to the Court's sequestration order. I am very troubled and disturbed that witnesses who are still subject to recall are calling other witnesses that they know will be called to testify; that will be called to testify about their memories of events that happened years ago; and that they are disclosing to witnesses -- this witness -- what they experienced on the witness stand, including a document that they were shown, your Honor. I am asking the Court to forbid the witness Brian from being called, given this violation. At a minimum, your Honor, I would ask that there is a hearing outside the presence of the jury in which Brian is subject to examination by the Court as to exactly what happened during this phone call. Those are the two pieces of information that he reported to the government and was reported to us via some handwritten notes at about 2 this morning. That's my request, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MS. MOE: Your Honor, there are only two legal principles at play here. The first is Rule 615 about excluding witnesses from a courtroom. Neither Brian nor Jane has been in the courtroom while other witnesses have testified. That rule",
- "position": "main content"
- },
- {
- "type": "printed",
- "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
- "position": "footer"
- },
- {
- "type": "printed",
- "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013016",
- "position": "footer"
- }
- ],
- "entities": {
- "people": [
- "Brian",
- "Jane",
- "MS. MOE"
- ],
- "organizations": [
- "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
- ],
- "locations": [],
- "dates": [
- "08/10/22"
- ],
- "reference_numbers": [
- "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
- "753",
- "DOJ-OGR-00013016"
- ]
- },
- "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
- }
|