mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008105.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20 of 25",
    "document_number": "508",
    "date": "11/24/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 508 Filed 11/24/21 Page 20 of 25\nThese are just some of the many reasons why Rule 703 does not bar Dr. Hall's testimony.\nTo the extent the government has other objections, it can raise those objections in context during trial.\n5. Dr. Hall's \"fact testimony.\"\nAs Dr. Hall's report makes clear, never disclosed any abuse by Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. Then, when interviewed for 6 ½ hours by Dr. Hall. claimed to have been abused by Mr. Epstein, but she did not allege any abuse or improper conduct by Ms. Maxwell. This evidence is admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.\nTo the extent the government claims failure ever to implicate Ms. Maxwell to or Dr. Hall is not \"inconsistent enough,\" that argument goes to weight, not admissibility. See R.B. Ventures, Ltd. v. Shane, No. 91 CIV. 5678 (CSH), 2000 WL 520615, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2000) (extent of inconsistency \"may prove useful grist for the cross-examiner's mill,\" but the argument \"go[es] to the weight of this opinion testimony and not its admissibility\").\nIndeed, this Court has already ruled that Ms. Maxwell can admit evidence that prior statements to law enforcement did not implicate Ms. Maxwell. TR 11/1/2021, p 27. The same logic applies here.\nThe government says Ms. Maxwell \"does not need Dr. Hall's testimony to inform the jury that has not always disclosed the defendant's role in Epstein's abuse.\" Mot. at 18. \"Need,\" of course, is not the test for admissibility, and the government does not get to limit Ms. Maxwell's evidence only that which the government claims she \"needs.\" See White, 692\n16\nDOJ-OGR-00008105",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 508 Filed 11/24/21 Page 20 of 25",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "These are just some of the many reasons why Rule 703 does not bar Dr. Hall's testimony.\nTo the extent the government has other objections, it can raise those objections in context during trial.\n5. Dr. Hall's \"fact testimony.\"\nAs Dr. Hall's report makes clear, never disclosed any abuse by Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. Then, when interviewed for 6 ½ hours by Dr. Hall. claimed to have been abused by Mr. Epstein, but she did not allege any abuse or improper conduct by Ms. Maxwell. This evidence is admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.\nTo the extent the government claims failure ever to implicate Ms. Maxwell to or Dr. Hall is not \"inconsistent enough,\" that argument goes to weight, not admissibility. See R.B. Ventures, Ltd. v. Shane, No. 91 CIV. 5678 (CSH), 2000 WL 520615, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2000) (extent of inconsistency \"may prove useful grist for the cross-examiner's mill,\" but the argument \"go[es] to the weight of this opinion testimony and not its admissibility\").\nIndeed, this Court has already ruled that Ms. Maxwell can admit evidence that prior statements to law enforcement did not implicate Ms. Maxwell. TR 11/1/2021, p 27. The same logic applies here.\nThe government says Ms. Maxwell \"does not need Dr. Hall's testimony to inform the jury that has not always disclosed the defendant's role in Epstein's abuse.\" Mot. at 18. \"Need,\" of course, is not the test for admissibility, and the government does not get to limit Ms. Maxwell's evidence only that which the government claims she \"needs.\" See White, 692",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "16",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008105",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Hall",
      "Mr. Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/24/21",
      "May 1, 2000",
      "11/1/2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 508",
      "91 CIV. 5678 (CSH)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, with redactions of certain names or details. The text discusses the admissibility of Dr. Hall's testimony and prior inconsistent statements."
}