mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00012097.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "77",
    "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 77 of 264 483 LC1VMAX3 Jane - cross 1 THE COURT: So that's not a 408 issue, it's a scope of knowledge issue. 2 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. 3 It's a 408 issue to the extent the questions are about 4 negotiations related to settlements which would only be 5 admissible in order to show bias under the second prong of the 6 rule. And that's where the scope of knowledge issue comes into 7 play, because facts along those lines would only be relevant 8 under Rule 408 if this witness were aware of them. So we just 9 wanted to make sure any examination was cabined along those 10 lines. 11 12 THE COURT: Ms. Menninger? 13 MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, in those two documents, 14 the attorney in a civil matter for this witness demanded sums 15 of money. And there was one in the civil case. He was acting 16 in his capacity, and she was a party in that case, and he was 17 her lawyer. So his statements are adoptive admissions by the 18 party from that case that she was demanding the money that's 19 claimed in that letter. That's the first one. 20 THE COURT: And so what do you expect to do? You 21 expect to ask what? 22 MS. MENNINGER: You were demanding $25 million to 23 settle your civil law claim while Ms. Maxwell was pending in 24 this criminal case, I might add. That's the first one. 25 THE COURT: Okay. So the question is, Were you 483 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00012097",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 77 of 264 483 LC1VMAX3 Jane - cross",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "THE COURT: So that's not a 408 issue, it's a scope of knowledge issue. MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. It's a 408 issue to the extent the questions are about negotiations related to settlements which would only be admissible in order to show bias under the second prong of the rule. And that's where the scope of knowledge issue comes into play, because facts along those lines would only be relevant under Rule 408 if this witness were aware of them. So we just wanted to make sure any examination was cabined along those lines. THE COURT: Ms. Menninger? MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, in those two documents, the attorney in a civil matter for this witness demanded sums of money. And there was one in the civil case. He was acting in his capacity, and she was a party in that case, and he was her lawyer. So his statements are adoptive admissions by the party from that case that she was demanding the money that's claimed in that letter. That's the first one. THE COURT: And so what do you expect to do? You expect to ask what? MS. MENNINGER: You were demanding $25 million to settle your civil law claim while Ms. Maxwell was pending in this criminal case, I might add. That's the first one. THE COURT: Okay. So the question is, Were you",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012097",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Moe",
      "Ms. Menninger",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "745",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012097"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}