mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007086.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "35",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 35 of 127\nLB15MAX2\n\nan out-of-court statement you are putting on for the truth, it is hearsay.\nMS. MENNINGER: Slightly different, your Honor.\nIf a witness says they interviewed -- if a law enforcement says they interviewed another accuser and that accuser never said that Ms. Maxwell was involved, that's not a hearsay statement. They just didn't mention her, it is the absence of a statement. And as your Honor just ruled in terms of the thoroughness of the investigation, if there is evidence that the government puts on about these other accusers I think that's what opens the door. It is not us opening the door, it would be them submitting evidence that other people were victims without putting those people on, putting on message pads that had their names on it, and then precluding us from introducing evidence that none of those individuals implicated Ms. Maxwell.\nTHE COURT: Right. So, if the government does that you are not precluded from putting other evidence on. The question is what evidence would it be and would it be admissible under the relevant rules of evidence. I am not sure I can resolve that in the abstract. It sounds like neither side intends to open with respect to this issue and I think we largely agree on the legal principles. Tell me if you need more guidance for purposes of opening or preparing your case.\nMs. Menninger?\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00007086",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 35 of 127",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LB15MAX2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "an out-of-court statement you are putting on for the truth, it is hearsay.\nMS. MENNINGER: Slightly different, your Honor.\nIf a witness says they interviewed -- if a law enforcement says they interviewed another accuser and that accuser never said that Ms. Maxwell was involved, that's not a hearsay statement. They just didn't mention her, it is the absence of a statement. And as your Honor just ruled in terms of the thoroughness of the investigation, if there is evidence that the government puts on about these other accusers I think that's what opens the door. It is not us opening the door, it would be them submitting evidence that other people were victims without putting those people on, putting on message pads that had their names on it, and then precluding us from introducing evidence that none of those individuals implicated Ms. Maxwell.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "THE COURT: Right. So, if the government does that you are not precluded from putting other evidence on. The question is what evidence would it be and would it be admissible under the relevant rules of evidence. I am not sure I can resolve that in the abstract. It sounds like neither side intends to open with respect to this issue and I think we largely agree on the legal principles. Tell me if you need more guidance for purposes of opening or preparing your case.\nMs. Menninger?",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007086",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Menninger",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007086"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}