mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00012103.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "83",
    "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 83 of 264 489 LC1VMAX3 Jane - cross we're talking about is impeachment. And so a statement or an issue of bias that's being offered for impeachment, whether we're talking about a Rule 408 issue or otherwise, is only relevant and permissible if this witness knows about it. THE COURT: I agree there are personal knowledge questions in issue. I did ask you specifically if it was a 408 issue, and you said yes. You're on your feet, of course, now, and have to respond to me quoting a Second Circuit decision at you. And, of course, district courts are required to follow Second Circuit precedent even if its intention was subsequent changes in the law, unless and until the case is reconsidered by the Second Circuit sitting en banc or its equivalent or is rejected by a later Supreme Court decision. So I do think there may be a question of the change in the rule and what the scope of that was and whether it overturns the Second Circuit decision such that I'm not bound by it. I doubt it. Separate and apart from that is the question of whether she has personal knowledge of what her attorneys did, right. MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: It's not a 408 issue, it's a foundation question, personal knowledge question. Ms. Menninger made an argument that in the civil litigation context, she could be assumed to have adopted the position of her attorneys. I think we do get to that bridge, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00012103",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 83 of 264 489",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LC1VMAX3 Jane - cross",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "we're talking about is impeachment. And so a statement or an issue of bias that's being offered for impeachment, whether we're talking about a Rule 408 issue or otherwise, is only relevant and permissible if this witness knows about it. THE COURT: I agree there are personal knowledge questions in issue. I did ask you specifically if it was a 408 issue, and you said yes. You're on your feet, of course, now, and have to respond to me quoting a Second Circuit decision at you. And, of course, district courts are required to follow Second Circuit precedent even if its intention was subsequent changes in the law, unless and until the case is reconsidered by the Second Circuit sitting en banc or its equivalent or is rejected by a later Supreme Court decision. So I do think there may be a question of the change in the rule and what the scope of that was and whether it overturns the Second Circuit decision such that I'm not bound by it. I doubt it. Separate and apart from that is the question of whether she has personal knowledge of what her attorneys did, right. MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: It's not a 408 issue, it's a foundation question, personal knowledge question. Ms. Menninger made an argument that in the civil litigation context, she could be assumed to have adopted the position of her attorneys. I think we do get to that bridge,",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012103",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "MS. MOE",
      "Ms. Menninger"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "Supreme Court",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "745",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012103"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}