mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00012014.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "242 of 247",
    "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 242 of 247 401 LBUCmax7\n\nHere defense counsel, in opening statements, suggested to the jury that a recent motive to fabricate in this case was civil litigation in a particular Jeffrey Epstein victim compensation fund. So this statement is offered expressly to rebut that because, in fact, Jane had told someone about this a decade before that or more.\n\nWith respect to the second prong of the rule, the statement is proper to rehabilitate the declarant's credibility as a witness when attacked on another ground. The advisory committee notes the rule expressly explained that one of the grounds for rehabilitation is when that witness's memory has been challenged, and here given this witness had made that statement much earlier in time closer to the events, this statement would be appropriate under the second prong of the rule, as well.\n\nMS. STERNHEIM: My response is still I think we need to wait until her cross examination is over. I understand what they are intending to do. It has to be evaluated whether the statement that they allege she made to Matt is really a prior consistent statement on her.\n\nMS. MOE: Your Honor, in our view --\n\nTHE COURT: Isn't the question whether it's a prior consistent statement with what she testified on direct?\n\nMS. STERNHEIM: It's not entirely clear because her statement to him is extraordinarily vague and he did research\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00012014",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 743 Filed 08/10/22 Page 242 of 247 401 LBUCmax7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here defense counsel, in opening statements, suggested to the jury that a recent motive to fabricate in this case was civil litigation in a particular Jeffrey Epstein victim compensation fund. So this statement is offered expressly to rebut that because, in fact, Jane had told someone about this a decade before that or more.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "With respect to the second prong of the rule, the statement is proper to rehabilitate the declarant's credibility as a witness when attacked on another ground. The advisory committee notes the rule expressly explained that one of the grounds for rehabilitation is when that witness's memory has been challenged, and here given this witness had made that statement much earlier in time closer to the events, this statement would be appropriate under the second prong of the rule, as well.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "MS. STERNHEIM: My response is still I think we need to wait until her cross examination is over. I understand what they are intending to do. It has to be evaluated whether the statement that they allege she made to Matt is really a prior consistent statement on her.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "MS. MOE: Your Honor, in our view --\n\nTHE COURT: Isn't the question whether it's a prior consistent statement with what she testified on direct?\n\nMS. STERNHEIM: It's not entirely clear because her statement to him is extraordinarily vague and he did research",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00012014",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Jane",
      "Matt",
      "MS. STERNHEIM",
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 743",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012014"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}