mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00012015.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "243",
    "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 243 of 247 402 LBUCmax7\n\n1 and put it together by himself.\n\n2 THE COURT: You can cross him on that.\n\n3 MS. STERNHEIM: I understand that. I'm not\n4 challenging. I'm just saying that I think the full issue\n5 should be addressed at the conclusion of this witness's\n6 testimony.\n\n7 THE COURT: All right. We'll address it at the\n8 conclusion of the witness's testimony. I understand the\n9 government's point to be that the prongs of the rule are both\n10 put in issue by the defense's opening, attacking, I suppose,\n11 all of the witness's credibility on memory, on recent\n12 fabrication, and monetary incentive. So I suppose the\n13 government's position, if I understand it, is that in light of\n14 that opening, any prior consistent statement of any of the\n15 witnesses comes in. Is that the contention?\n\n16 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Defense counsel has kicked\n17 the door wide open. So under both prongs of the rule, all\n18 prior consistent statements of the witnesses in this case are\n19 admissible.\n\n20 THE COURT: Do you anticipate beyond the next witness\n21 the same issue occurring?\n\n22 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, with respect to other\n23 victims in this case.\n\n24 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim, your view is that the\n25 opening hasn't sufficiently put the specific credibility of\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00012015",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 743 Filed 08/10/22 Page 243 of 247 402 LBUCmax7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 and put it together by himself.\n\n2 THE COURT: You can cross him on that.\n\n3 MS. STERNHEIM: I understand that. I'm not\n4 challenging. I'm just saying that I think the full issue\n5 should be addressed at the conclusion of this witness's\n6 testimony.\n\n7 THE COURT: All right. We'll address it at the\n8 conclusion of the witness's testimony. I understand the\n9 government's point to be that the prongs of the rule are both\n10 put in issue by the defense's opening, attacking, I suppose,\n11 all of the witness's credibility on memory, on recent\n12 fabrication, and monetary incentive. So I suppose the\n13 government's position, if I understand it, is that in light of\n14 that opening, any prior consistent statement of any of the\n15 witnesses comes in. Is that the contention?\n\n16 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Defense counsel has kicked\n17 the door wide open. So under both prongs of the rule, all\n18 prior consistent statements of the witnesses in this case are\n19 admissible.\n\n20 THE COURT: Do you anticipate beyond the next witness\n21 the same issue occurring?\n\n22 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, with respect to other\n23 victims in this case.\n\n24 THE COURT: Ms. Sternheim, your view is that the\n25 opening hasn't sufficiently put the specific credibility of",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012015",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. STERNHEIM",
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "743",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012015"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}