mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008057.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "16",
    "document_number": "507",
    "date": "11/24/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 507 Filed 11/24/21 Page 16 of 28\n\nC. Any Undisclosed Significance of Dr. Hall's Opinions Is Inadmissible\nIn addition to testifying about\n\nAs discussed above, to the extent his\nreport discloses the significance of his opinions, for purposes of this case they have none, because nothing in the report concerns the elements of or defenses to the charged offenses, or Minor Victim-4's ability to testify accurately. (See supra at 5 to 11). And to the extent Dr. Hall would testify about any undisclosed significance to his opinions, the failure to disclose that testimony itself renders it inadmissible.\nThe party proposing to call an expert must provide \"a written summary of any testimony that the defendant intends to use.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C). The Rule requires that the expert disclose what his testimony will be, not just the topics about which he will testify. See United States v. Valle, No. 12 Cr. 847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) (\"Merely\n14\nDOJ-OGR-00008057",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 507 Filed 11/24/21 Page 16 of 28",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. Any Undisclosed Significance of Dr. Hall's Opinions Is Inadmissible",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In addition to testifying about",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As discussed above, to the extent his report discloses the significance of his opinions, for purposes of this case they have none, because nothing in the report concerns the elements of or defenses to the charged offenses, or Minor Victim-4's ability to testify accurately. (See supra at 5 to 11). And to the extent Dr. Hall would testify about any undisclosed significance to his opinions, the failure to disclose that testimony itself renders it inadmissible.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The party proposing to call an expert must provide \"a written summary of any testimony that the defendant intends to use.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C). The Rule requires that the expert disclose what his testimony will be, not just the topics about which he will testify. See United States v. Valle, No. 12 Cr. 847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) (\"Merely",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "14",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008057",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Hall",
      "PGG"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/24/21",
      "Feb. 2, 2013"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 507",
      "12 Cr. 847"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content visible. There are no stamps or signatures present."
}