mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00012022.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "745",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 2 of 264 LC1VMAX1\n\n1 (Trial resumed; jury not present)\n2 THE COURT: All right. Matters to take up, counsel,\n3 includes the Rule 16/608, as I see it, issue. And then I want\n4 to see where you are in terms of working out anticipated\n5 personal identifying information of witnesses who I've given\n6 permission to testify under pseudonyms to protect their\n7 privacy.\n8 So let's begin.\n9 Ms. Menninger, did you want to begin with the Rule 16\n10 issue?\n11 MS. MENNINGER: I think Mr. Everdell was going to\n12 handle that piece.\n13 THE COURT: Okay.\n14 Ms. Comey, are you taking this?\n15 MR. ROHRBACH: I'm taking this one, your Honor.\n16 THE COURT: You all swapped off.\n17 So I think the defense is clearly right that if we are\n18 talking by impeachment by contradiction, that is to say,\n19 impeachment, direct contradiction of something testified to on\n20 the stand, it's not required to be disclosed as case-in-chief\n21 material under Rule 16; and depending on what it is, it's\n22 likely not 608 because it's impeachment by contradiction, not\n23 impeachment to show -- extrinsic evidence to show a character\n24 for dishonesty and the like.\n25 So the question is whether it's impeachment or not.\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00012022",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 2 of 264 LC1VMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(Trial resumed; jury not present)\nTHE COURT: All right. Matters to take up, counsel,\nincludes the Rule 16/608, as I see it, issue. And then I want\nto see where you are in terms of working out anticipated\npersonal identifying information of witnesses who I've given\npermission to testify under pseudonyms to protect their\nprivacy.\nSo let's begin.\nMs. Menninger, did you want to begin with the Rule 16\nissue?\nMS. MENNINGER: I think Mr. Everdell was going to\nhandle that piece.\nTHE COURT: Okay.\nMs. Comey, are you taking this?\nMR. ROHRBACH: I'm taking this one, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: You all swapped off.\nSo I think the defense is clearly right that if we are\ntalking by impeachment by contradiction, that is to say,\nimpeachment, direct contradiction of something testified to on\nthe stand, it's not required to be disclosed as case-in-chief\nmaterial under Rule 16; and depending on what it is, it's\nlikely not 608 because it's impeachment by contradiction, not\nimpeachment to show -- extrinsic evidence to show a character\nfor dishonesty and the like.\nSo the question is whether it's impeachment or not.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012022",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Menninger",
      "Mr. Everdell",
      "Ms. Comey",
      "Mr. Rohrbach"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "745",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012022"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}