mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00018463.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "126",
    "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 126 of 261 1287 LC6VMAX4\n\nBut the witness was able to testify fully about the issue, and she testified fully about the matter; and there was no, you know, inconsistency or prior inconsistent statement. It should not be admitted into evidence.\n\nTHE COURT: My read on it at the time was that the only discrepancy was -- the implied discrepancy was whether pictures were actually sent, but the email doesn't go to that; so it seems to me that her testimony was what was reflected in the email. What am I missing?\n\nMS. STERNHEIM: May I have just a moment?\n\nTHE COURT: You may.\n\nAnd I suppose, to put a fine point on the question, as Ms. Pomerantz says, what is it that the witness could not recall well enough to testify fully and accurately?\n\nMS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, it's my understanding --\n\nTHE COURT: I'm sorry, at the mic please.\n\nMS. STERNHEIM: I apologize.\n\nTHE COURT: That's okay.\n\nMS. STERNHEIM: Past recollection recorded does not have to be inconsistent.\n\nTHE COURT: Okay. That's not the question.\n\nSo just a record that sub A is on a matter the witness once knew about, but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately.\n\nSo what couldn't the witness testify fully and\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00018463",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 126 of 261 1287 LC6VMAX4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "But the witness was able to testify fully about the issue, and she testified fully about the matter; and there was no, you know, inconsistency or prior inconsistent statement. It should not be admitted into evidence.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "THE COURT: My read on it at the time was that the only discrepancy was -- the implied discrepancy was whether pictures were actually sent, but the email doesn't go to that; so it seems to me that her testimony was what was reflected in the email. What am I missing?",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "MS. STERNHEIM: May I have just a moment? THE COURT: You may. And I suppose, to put a fine point on the question, as Ms. Pomerantz says, what is it that the witness could not recall well enough to testify fully and accurately? MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, it's my understanding -- THE COURT: I'm sorry, at the mic please. MS. STERNHEIM: I apologize. THE COURT: That's okay. MS. STERNHEIM: Past recollection recorded does not have to be inconsistent. THE COURT: Okay. That's not the question. So just a record that sub A is on a matter the witness once knew about, but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately. So what couldn't the witness testify fully and",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00018463",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. STERNHEIM",
      "Ms. Pomerantz"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "751",
      "126",
      "261",
      "1287",
      "DOJ-OGR-00018463"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}