mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00016752.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "23",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 23 of 197 2564 LCF Cmax1 notes. Third, as I previously explained, testimony that a witness does not recall making a statement may be but is not necessarily a basis for inconsistency. Finally, I'll apply 403, consistent with my prior rulings of prior inconsistent statement has already been read in full into the record. I'll sustain the government's objection to admitting the statement as extrinsic evidence. See, for example, United States v. King, 560 F.2d 122 (2d Cir. 1977). Stating where evidence is admissible under 613, it could be excluded under 403. With that, we can turn to the list of the prior statements and I'll do my best to apply that guidance I've just given in light of the arguments raised by the parties and my review of the transcript. So beginning with Jane, transcript at 447, I will overrule. Jane denied the statement in the handwritten notes, which is an inconsistency, even if the later 302 corroborates Jane's testimony. I will overrule that government objection. Transcript at 455, I'll sustain the government's objection for two reasons. The full statement was read into the record and Jane responded it was, quote, correct, I guess, admitting the statement. Transcript at 470 to 71, overruled. Here the defense has adequately identified the statement at issue. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00016752",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 23 of 197 2564",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LCF Cmax1 notes. Third, as I previously explained, testimony that a witness does not recall making a statement may be but is not necessarily a basis for inconsistency. Finally, I'll apply 403, consistent with my prior rulings of prior inconsistent statement has already been read in full into the record. I'll sustain the government's objection to admitting the statement as extrinsic evidence. See, for example, United States v. King, 560 F.2d 122 (2d Cir. 1977). Stating where evidence is admissible under 613, it could be excluded under 403. With that, we can turn to the list of the prior statements and I'll do my best to apply that guidance I've just given in light of the arguments raised by the parties and my review of the transcript. So beginning with Jane, transcript at 447, I will overrule. Jane denied the statement in the handwritten notes, which is an inconsistency, even if the later 302 corroborates Jane's testimony. I will overrule that government objection. Transcript at 455, I'll sustain the government's objection for two reasons. The full statement was read into the record and Jane responded it was, quote, correct, I guess, admitting the statement. Transcript at 470 to 71, overruled. Here the defense has adequately identified the statement at issue.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00016752",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "King"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "1977"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "763",
      "403",
      "613",
      "302",
      "560 F.2d 122",
      "DOJ-OGR-00016752"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}