DOJ-OGR-00012004.json 4.0 KB

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556
  1. {
  2. "document_metadata": {
  3. "page_number": "232",
  4. "document_number": "743",
  5. "date": "08/10/22",
  6. "document_type": "court transcript",
  7. "has_handwriting": false,
  8. "has_stamps": false
  9. },
  10. "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 743 Filed 08/10/22 Page 232 of 247 391 LBUCmax7\n\n(Jury not present)\nTHE COURT: We have some matters to take up?\nMS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor. With respect to the Rule 16 issue, defendants Exhibit J36, what's never produced to the government in Rule 16, the Court set a Rule 16 production deadline of November 8th of this year. It appears that this may have been taken November 17th of this year, but just because it came into existence after that deadline does not excuse the defense from producing anything that they plan to offer in evidence in this trial. So this is a violation of Rule 16.\nTHE COURT: Okay. Ms. Menninger.\nMS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, that rule applies to any documents that we're offering in our case in chief, not as impeachment. In the government's presentation of evidence with this witness, they talked about a particular home and the characteristics of that home. I am impeaching the witness with an exhibit that presents a contrary home. The rule does not apply to impeachment material, it applies to things we intend to offer in our case in chief as per the rule.\nMS. COMEY: Your Honor, then this is extrinsic evidence that is inadmissible under the rules of evidence to impeach.\nTHE COURT: So it's one page of J36; correct?\nMS. MENNINGER: Correct, your Honor. I offered page\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00012004",
  11. "text_blocks": [
  12. {
  13. "type": "printed",
  14. "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 743 Filed 08/10/22 Page 232 of 247 391 LBUCmax7",
  15. "position": "header"
  16. },
  17. {
  18. "type": "printed",
  19. "content": "(Jury not present)\nTHE COURT: We have some matters to take up?\nMS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor. With respect to the Rule 16 issue, defendants Exhibit J36, what's never produced to the government in Rule 16, the Court set a Rule 16 production deadline of November 8th of this year. It appears that this may have been taken November 17th of this year, but just because it came into existence after that deadline does not excuse the defense from producing anything that they plan to offer in evidence in this trial. So this is a violation of Rule 16.\nTHE COURT: Okay. Ms. Menninger.\nMS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, that rule applies to any documents that we're offering in our case in chief, not as impeachment. In the government's presentation of evidence with this witness, they talked about a particular home and the characteristics of that home. I am impeaching the witness with an exhibit that presents a contrary home. The rule does not apply to impeachment material, it applies to things we intend to offer in our case in chief as per the rule.\nMS. COMEY: Your Honor, then this is extrinsic evidence that is inadmissible under the rules of evidence to impeach.\nTHE COURT: So it's one page of J36; correct?\nMS. MENNINGER: Correct, your Honor. I offered page",
  20. "position": "main content"
  21. },
  22. {
  23. "type": "printed",
  24. "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  25. "position": "footer"
  26. },
  27. {
  28. "type": "printed",
  29. "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012004",
  30. "position": "footer"
  31. }
  32. ],
  33. "entities": {
  34. "people": [
  35. "MS. COMEY",
  36. "THE COURT",
  37. "MS. MENNINGER"
  38. ],
  39. "organizations": [
  40. "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
  41. ],
  42. "locations": [],
  43. "dates": [
  44. "08/10/22",
  45. "November 8th",
  46. "November 17th"
  47. ],
  48. "reference_numbers": [
  49. "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
  50. "Document 743",
  51. "J36",
  52. "DOJ-OGR-00012004"
  53. ]
  54. },
  55. "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a discussion about a Rule 16 issue and the admissibility of evidence. The text is mostly clear, but there may be some minor formatting issues due to the original document's layout."
  56. }