mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008062.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "21",
    "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 21 of 28\nexpects to elicit the failure to mention her on direct, and does not object to reasonable cross\nexamination on the subject.\nIt may nonetheless be that after Minor Victim-4 testifies the defendant will be able to argue\nthat some statement made to Dr. Hall satisfies the multiple prerequisites for introducing extrinsic\nevidence of a prior inconsistent statement. See generally United States v. Ghailani, 761 F. Supp.\n2d 114, 117-19 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (discussing requirements).10 As the Court has noted, any\nargument on that score must await the presentation of evidence. (See Nov. 11, 2021 Sealed Tr., at\n194). But at present, the defendant has identified no relevant fact testimony that Dr. Hall could\noffer. Because his expert testimony is similarly inadmissible, he should be excluded as a witness\nabsent further developments at trial.\n10 To be clear, although Dr. Hall could conceivably testify as to his recollection of some prior\ninconsistent statement by Minor Victim-4, the rough transcript of his interview with her cannot\nbecome admissible as extrinsic evidence of Minor Victim-4's statements regardless how she\ntestifies. That label—“rough transcript”—comes from the document itself. (3505-035, at 1). And\nit is quite obviously rough. The document contains numerous errors, including on material points.\nBecause the rough transcript is not a verbatim transcript, it cannot be offered as extrinsic\nevidence of prior inconsistent statements. See United States v. Almonte, 956 F.2d 27, 29 (2d Cir.\n1992) (per curiam) (“[A] ‘third party's characterization’ of a witness's statement does not\nconstitute a prior statement of that witness unless the witness has subscribed to that\ncharacterization.”); United States v. Leonardi, 623 F.2d 746, 757 (2d Cir. 1980) (FBI notes offered\nto impeach not attributable to witness because “a witness may not be charged with a third party's\ncharacterization of his statements unless the witness has subscribed to them”); see also Ghailani,\n761 F. Supp. 2d at 117-18, 120 (excluding testimony about prior witness interviews offered as\nprior inconsistent statements due to, among other things, concerns about translation errors).\n19\nDOJ-OGR-00008062",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 507 Filed 11/24/21 Page 21 of 28",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "expects to elicit the failure to mention her on direct, and does not object to reasonable cross\nexamination on the subject.\nIt may nonetheless be that after Minor Victim-4 testifies the defendant will be able to argue\nthat some statement made to Dr. Hall satisfies the multiple prerequisites for introducing extrinsic\nevidence of a prior inconsistent statement. See generally United States v. Ghailani, 761 F. Supp.\n2d 114, 117-19 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (discussing requirements).10 As the Court has noted, any\nargument on that score must await the presentation of evidence. (See Nov. 11, 2021 Sealed Tr., at\n194). But at present, the defendant has identified no relevant fact testimony that Dr. Hall could\noffer. Because his expert testimony is similarly inadmissible, he should be excluded as a witness\nabsent further developments at trial.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10 To be clear, although Dr. Hall could conceivably testify as to his recollection of some prior\ninconsistent statement by Minor Victim-4, the rough transcript of his interview with her cannot\nbecome admissible as extrinsic evidence of Minor Victim-4's statements regardless how she\ntestifies. That label—“rough transcript”—comes from the document itself. (3505-035, at 1). And\nit is quite obviously rough. The document contains numerous errors, including on material points.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Because the rough transcript is not a verbatim transcript, it cannot be offered as extrinsic\nevidence of prior inconsistent statements. See United States v. Almonte, 956 F.2d 27, 29 (2d Cir.\n1992) (per curiam) (“[A] ‘third party's characterization’ of a witness's statement does not\nconstitute a prior statement of that witness unless the witness has subscribed to that\ncharacterization.”); United States v. Leonardi, 623 F.2d 746, 757 (2d Cir. 1980) (FBI notes offered\nto impeach not attributable to witness because “a witness may not be charged with a third party's\ncharacterization of his statements unless the witness has subscribed to them”); see also Ghailani,\n761 F. Supp. 2d at 117-18, 120 (excluding testimony about prior witness interviews offered as\nprior inconsistent statements due to, among other things, concerns about translation errors).",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "19",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008062",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Hall",
      "Minor Victim-4"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/24/21",
      "Nov. 11, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 507",
      "3505-035",
      "761 F. Supp. 2d 114",
      "956 F.2d 27",
      "623 F.2d 746"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the admissibility of certain testimony and evidence. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}