mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007065.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 14 of 127\nLB1TMAX1\n\n1 any alleged victims' prior consistent statements. As I can\n2 tell from the cross papers here, I don't think there's an issue\n3 to resolve now. The government's reply notes it's not seeking\n4 to admit any particular prior consistent statements at this\n5 time.\n6 Ms. Moe, let me confirm there will be no mention of\n7 any such statements in the government's openings, is that\n8 correct?\n9 MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor.\n10 THE COURT: Okay. Of course, the admissibility of any\n11 prior consistent statement hinges on defense counsel's\n12 arguments and the purpose for which any statements are being\n13 offered.\n14 I think the parties agree on the applicable law here.\n15 If this does become an issue, as they have outlined in their\n16 papers, Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(i) excludes from the rule against\n17 hearsay a witness's prior consistent statement offered to rebut\n18 the charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or\n19 motive. Of course, the prior consistent statement, should the\n20 government seek to have any admitted, must have been made\n21 before the motive to fabricate that's alleged arose, or else it\n22 has no relevance in rebutting the fabrication charge. Tome v.\n23 U.S., 513 U.S. 150, (1995).\n24 The rule's second subsection excludes prior consistent\n25 statements from the rule against hearsay when they're offered\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00007065",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 14 of 127",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LB1TMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "any alleged victims' prior consistent statements. As I can tell from the cross papers here, I don't think there's an issue to resolve now. The government's reply notes it's not seeking to admit any particular prior consistent statements at this time. Ms. Moe, let me confirm there will be no mention of any such statements in the government's openings, is that correct? MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Of course, the admissibility of any prior consistent statement hinges on defense counsel's arguments and the purpose for which any statements are being offered. I think the parties agree on the applicable law here. If this does become an issue, as they have outlined in their papers, Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(i) excludes from the rule against hearsay a witness's prior consistent statement offered to rebut the charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. Of course, the prior consistent statement, should the government seek to have any admitted, must have been made before the motive to fabricate that's alleged arose, or else it has no relevance in rebutting the fabrication charge. Tome v. U.S., 513 U.S. 150, (1995). The rule's second subsection excludes prior consistent statements from the rule against hearsay when they're offered",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007065",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Moe"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "U.S."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21",
      "1995"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "513 U.S. 150",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007065"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}