mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011153.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "692",
    "date": "11/22/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 15 of 17\nor emotional condition, her statements made to Dr. Hall in about events that took place years earlier cannot be said to be “then-existing.” Id. The Defense also says Alleged Victim 4's statements were “made for medical diagnosis or treatment.” Fed. R. Evid. 803(4). The Court finds that this may be a permissible basis for admitting some of Alleged Victim 4's statements, though they must be “made for . . . medical diagnosis or treatment,” must “describe[ ] medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause,” and must otherwise satisfy Rules 401 and 403. Fed. R. Evid. 803(4)(A), (B); see In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 611 F. Supp. 1223, 1245-46 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd sub nom., 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1987) (Weinstein, C.J.).1 But without additional detail from the Defense on which portions of Dr. Hall's testimony it would seek to admit under this exception, the Court cannot make a definitive ruling.\nThe Defense does not mention Alleged Victim 4's cited by Dr. Hall in his report. The Court concludes that Alleged Victim 4's are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Dr. Hall's report is not clear on the details of Alleged Victim 4's \nThese incidents, however, are now all over 10 years old, none appear to require proving “a dishonest act or false statement,” and, for , admitting the evidence is not necessary to fairly determine the guilt or innocence of Ms. Maxwell. Fed. R. Evid. 609 (a), (b), (d).\n1 The Defense also argues that Alleged Victim 4's statements would be “admissible for their effect on Dr. Hall in forming his opinion.” Def. Br. at 15. But, like Rule 703, this justification is a relevant basis for admission only if the validity of Dr. Hall's diagnoses is put in question.\n15\nDOJ-OGR-00011153",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 15 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "or emotional condition, her statements made to Dr. Hall in about events that took place years earlier cannot be said to be “then-existing.” Id. The Defense also says Alleged Victim 4's statements were “made for medical diagnosis or treatment.” Fed. R. Evid. 803(4). The Court finds that this may be a permissible basis for admitting some of Alleged Victim 4's statements, though they must be “made for . . . medical diagnosis or treatment,” must “describe[ ] medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause,” and must otherwise satisfy Rules 401 and 403. Fed. R. Evid. 803(4)(A), (B); see In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 611 F. Supp. 1223, 1245-46 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd sub nom., 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1987) (Weinstein, C.J.).1 But without additional detail from the Defense on which portions of Dr. Hall's testimony it would seek to admit under this exception, the Court cannot make a definitive ruling.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Defense does not mention Alleged Victim 4's cited by Dr. Hall in his report. The Court concludes that Alleged Victim 4's are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Dr. Hall's report is not clear on the details of Alleged Victim 4's",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "These incidents, however, are now all over 10 years old, none appear to require proving “a dishonest act or false statement,” and, for , admitting the evidence is not necessary to fairly determine the guilt or innocence of Ms. Maxwell. Fed. R. Evid. 609 (a), (b), (d).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 The Defense also argues that Alleged Victim 4's statements would be “admissible for their effect on Dr. Hall in forming his opinion.” Def. Br. at 15. But, like Rule 703, this justification is a relevant basis for admission only if the validity of Dr. Hall's diagnoses is put in question.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011153",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Hall",
      "Alleged Victim 4",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Weinstein, C.J."
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/22/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 692",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011153"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The redactions are likely related to sensitive information about the case or individuals involved."
}