mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007066.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "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 15 of 127\nLB1TMAX1\n1 to rehabilitate a witness attacked on another ground. It's\n2 801(d)(1)(B)(ii). For example, the statement could be admitted\n3 to explain what would otherwise appear to be an inconsistency\n4 in the witness's statement and rebut a charge of faulty memory.\n5 United States v. Purcell, 967 F.3d 159, (2d Cir. 2020).\n6 If it becomes relevant, the government may offer prior\n7 statements before the witness testifies if the defense attacks\n8 the credibility in opening statements and it's clear that the\n9 witness will be subject to cross-examination. United States v.\n10 Flores, 945 F.3d 687, (2d Cir. 2019). That's restating the\n11 applicable law here that the parties appear to agree to in the\n12 briefs. The government doesn't anticipate any such effort to\n13 offer such statements at this time and won't mention any in\n14 opening beyond that.\n15 Is there anything specific to flag or discuss here,\n16 from the government's perspective?\n17 MS. MOE: No, your Honor, thank you.\n18 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim?\n19 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, Laura Menninger. None for\n20 the defense at this time. Thank you.\n21 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.\n22 The government's 3 and 4, which I'm going to group,\n23 the government seeks to preclude evidence and arguments by the\n24 defense, (1) about the investigation in Florida, including the\n25 non-prosecution agreement, (2) that Ms. Maxwell was not charged\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00007066",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 15 of 127",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LB1TMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 to rehabilitate a witness attacked on another ground. It's\n2 801(d)(1)(B)(ii). For example, the statement could be admitted\n3 to explain what would otherwise appear to be an inconsistency\n4 in the witness's statement and rebut a charge of faulty memory.\n5 United States v. Purcell, 967 F.3d 159, (2d Cir. 2020).\n6 If it becomes relevant, the government may offer prior\n7 statements before the witness testifies if the defense attacks\n8 the credibility in opening statements and it's clear that the\n9 witness will be subject to cross-examination. United States v.\n10 Flores, 945 F.3d 687, (2d Cir. 2019). That's restating the\n11 applicable law here that the parties appear to agree to in the\n12 briefs. The government doesn't anticipate any such effort to\n13 offer such statements at this time and won't mention any in\n14 opening beyond that.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15 Is there anything specific to flag or discuss here,\n16 from the government's perspective?",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17 MS. MOE: No, your Honor, thank you.\n18 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim?\n19 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, Laura Menninger. None for\n20 the defense at this time. Thank you.\n21 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "22 The government's 3 and 4, which I'm going to group,\n23 the government seeks to preclude evidence and arguments by the\n24 defense, (1) about the investigation in Florida, including the\n25 non-prosecution agreement, (2) that Ms. Maxwell was not charged",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007066",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Moe",
      "Ms. Sternheim",
      "Ms. Menninger",
      "Laura Menninger",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007066"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}