mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00012012.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "240",
    "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 240 of 247 399 LBUCmax7\nknow, as the Court may recall, Jane testified earlier today about having disclosed having been abused to a person who we are identifying in this proceeding as Matt. We anticipate that Matt would be the next witness in this case who would be testifying about a prior consistent statement by Jane. We are offering that testimony under both prongs of Rule 801(d)(1), and I'd be happy to walk that through with the Court.\nWith respect to the first prong of the rule --\nTHE COURT: Is there an objection?\nMS. STERNHEIM: I'd like to hear their bases.\nTHE COURT: You have clarity on what the statement is?\nMS. STERNHEIM: Well --\nTHE COURT: I don't, so I don't know if you do or not.\nMS. STERNHEIM: I think I would have to parse what the next witness is going to say with the testimony here because it doesn't dovetail as the government is suggesting.\nTHE COURT: Okay. Can you be specific?\nMS. MOE: Of course, your Honor. I'd be happy to provide a proffer. I'd anticipate that Matt would testify that he was in a relationship with Jane in 2007, '08, and '09, and years thereafter. And during those years, he recalls having conversations with Jane in which Jane told him that when she was growing up as a kid, her family struggled financially and he asked her how they were able to pay for things when she was growing up, and she told him that there was this uncle or\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 743 Filed 08/10/22 Page 240 of 247 399 LBUCmax7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "know, as the Court may recall, Jane testified earlier today about having disclosed having been abused to a person who we are identifying in this proceeding as Matt. We anticipate that Matt would be the next witness in this case who would be testifying about a prior consistent statement by Jane. We are offering that testimony under both prongs of Rule 801(d)(1), and I'd be happy to walk that through with the Court.\nWith respect to the first prong of the rule --\nTHE COURT: Is there an objection?\nMS. STERNHEIM: I'd like to hear their bases.\nTHE COURT: You have clarity on what the statement is?\nMS. STERNHEIM: Well --\nTHE COURT: I don't, so I don't know if you do or not.\nMS. STERNHEIM: I think I would have to parse what the next witness is going to say with the testimony here because it doesn't dovetail as the government is suggesting.\nTHE COURT: Okay. Can you be specific?\nMS. MOE: Of course, your Honor. I'd be happy to provide a proffer. I'd anticipate that Matt would testify that he was in a relationship with Jane in 2007, '08, and '09, and years thereafter. And during those years, he recalls having conversations with Jane in which Jane told him that when she was growing up as a kid, her family struggled financially and he asked her how they were able to pay for things when she was growing up, and she told him that there was this uncle or",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Matt"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "2007",
      "2008",
      "2009"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "743"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}