mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00012008.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "236",
    "document_number": "743",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 743 Filed 08/10/22 Page 236 of 247 395\n\n1 in '94, '95, and '96. So I'm not really sure.\n2 THE COURT: There was a witness who testified as to it\n3 being an accurate reflection of what the home looked like;\n4 right?\n5 MS. MENNINGER: Without saying when, yes. A witness\n6 who continued to work for Mr. Epstein up until 2019.\n7 THE COURT: I mean, I suppose you're welcome to object\n8 to foundation, but there wasn't an objection to foundation.\n9 In any event, you'll brief whether the defense is\n10 obligated under Rule 16 to produce in advance to the government\n11 documents that clearly -- and we're not talking about\n12 statements.\n13 MS. COMEY: That's correct, your Honor. We're talking\n14 about an exhibit like a photograph, something like this very\n15 exhibit seems like classical 16. So we'll brief it, your\n16 Honor.\n17 THE COURT: Okay. Certainly, there is at least two\n18 situations. There is the situation in which the witness said\n19 something and you couldn't have anticipated what they said and\n20 you have something that you want to impeach with it, you\n21 couldn't have produced that in advance. So the question is not\n22 that, but obviously when you anticipate particular testimony\n23 and you have material that you think impeaches that you intend\n24 to introduce as evidence through cross examination. Whether\n25 you're obligated under Rule 16 to turn that over in advance,\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00012008",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 743 Filed 08/10/22 Page 236 of 247 395",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 in '94, '95, and '96. So I'm not really sure.\n2 THE COURT: There was a witness who testified as to it\n3 being an accurate reflection of what the home looked like;\n4 right?\n5 MS. MENNINGER: Without saying when, yes. A witness\n6 who continued to work for Mr. Epstein up until 2019.\n7 THE COURT: I mean, I suppose you're welcome to object\n8 to foundation, but there wasn't an objection to foundation.\n9 In any event, you'll brief whether the defense is\n10 obligated under Rule 16 to produce in advance to the government\n11 documents that clearly -- and we're not talking about\n12 statements.\n13 MS. COMEY: That's correct, your Honor. We're talking\n14 about an exhibit like a photograph, something like this very\n15 exhibit seems like classical 16. So we'll brief it, your\n16 Honor.\n17 THE COURT: Okay. Certainly, there is at least two\n18 situations. There is the situation in which the witness said\n19 something and you couldn't have anticipated what they said and\n20 you have something that you want to impeach with it, you\n21 couldn't have produced that in advance. So the question is not\n22 that, but obviously when you anticipate particular testimony\n23 and you have material that you think impeaches that you intend\n24 to introduce as evidence through cross examination. Whether\n25 you're obligated under Rule 16 to turn that over in advance,",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012008",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "MENNINGER",
      "COMEY"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "'94",
      "'95",
      "'96",
      "08/10/22",
      "2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 743",
      "Rule 16",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012008"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}