mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008351.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "41",
    "document_number": "536",
    "date": "12/10/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 536 Filed 12/10/21 Page 41 of 43 41 LBNAMAXTps mean -- THE COURT: You mean prior consistent. MS. MENNINGER: -- prior consistent -- we've got a problem at this table misspeaking -- of prior consistent statements, that the declarant be made available, subject to recross -- or recall to the stand to explain those supposed prior consistent statements. So I don't know how that bears on the Court's thinking about permitting those accusers who may be subject to recall to listen in on testimony following their release from their original testimony, your Honor. THE COURT: Well, I guess the first question is, under the rule, which reads, \"At a party's request, the court must order witnesses excluded so they cannot hear other witnesses' testimony\" -- or I could do it on my own. But I guess the question is, is the defense -- so the government says alleged victim witnesses, after they testify, may want to listen to testimony after that. Ms. Menninger, are you requesting they not do that because of the possibility that they may be recalled for rebuttal? MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. MS. COMEY: Your Honor, if we may, we would ask to put in a letter on this issue, to look into it. THE COURT: Yes. Fair enough. And I think you're right. There may be an intersection between the Crime Victim SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 536 Filed 12/10/21 Page 41 of 43 41 LBNAMAXTps",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "mean -- THE COURT: You mean prior consistent. MS. MENNINGER: -- prior consistent -- we've got a problem at this table misspeaking -- of prior consistent statements, that the declarant be made available, subject to recross -- or recall to the stand to explain those supposed prior consistent statements. So I don't know how that bears on the Court's thinking about permitting those accusers who may be subject to recall to listen in on testimony following their release from their original testimony, your Honor. THE COURT: Well, I guess the first question is, under the rule, which reads, \"At a party's request, the court must order witnesses excluded so they cannot hear other witnesses' testimony\" -- or I could do it on my own. But I guess the question is, is the defense -- so the government says alleged victim witnesses, after they testify, may want to listen to testimony after that. Ms. Menninger, are you requesting they not do that because of the possibility that they may be recalled for rebuttal? MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. MS. COMEY: Your Honor, if we may, we would ask to put in a letter on this issue, to look into it. THE COURT: Yes. Fair enough. And I think you're right. There may be an intersection between the Crime Victim",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MENNINGER",
      "MS. COMEY"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "12/10/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "536"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}