mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00012186.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "166",
    "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 166 of 264 577 LC1VMAX5 Jane - cross 1 (Pause) 2 THE COURT: What else do we need to take up? 3 MS. MODE: Your Honor, I'm not quite sure about the 4 timing for the length of cross, but I did want to just remind 5 the Court that the next witness raises the prior consistent 6 statements issues we discussed at the conclusion of the Court 7 day yesterday. 8 THE COURT: I'm sorry, that what? 9 MS. MODE: That the next witness we anticipate calling 10 would be the witness identified as Matt. And so just wanted to 11 tee up any issues relating to prior consistent statements. 12 THE COURT: I think where we left it was that, as 13 Ms. Sternheim said, we'll evaluate when you seek to introduce a 14 prior consistent statement whether, in fact, it's consistent 15 and whether they have attacked the veracity of that and, if 16 not, you won't object. 17 MS. STERNHEIM: Right. 18 THE COURT: And if they do object, I'll decide. 19 MS. MODE: Yes, your Honor. 20 I just wanted to clear that in advance. 21 THE COURT: Thank you. 22 Okay. What do you have, Ms. Menninger? 23 MS. MENNINGER: Under the authority of Rule 611(c), I 24 have redrafted it into a leading question, if that's 25 permissible, your Honor. And what I would ask is -- SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00012186",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 166 of 264 577 LC1VMAX5 Jane - cross",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(Pause) THE COURT: What else do we need to take up? MS. MODE: Your Honor, I'm not quite sure about the timing for the length of cross, but I did want to just remind the Court that the next witness raises the prior consistent statements issues we discussed at the conclusion of the Court day yesterday. THE COURT: I'm sorry, that what? MS. MODE: That the next witness we anticipate calling would be the witness identified as Matt. And so just wanted to tee up any issues relating to prior consistent statements. THE COURT: I think where we left it was that, as Ms. Sternheim said, we'll evaluate when you seek to introduce a prior consistent statement whether, in fact, it's consistent and whether they have attacked the veracity of that and, if not, you won't object. MS. STERNHEIM: Right. THE COURT: And if they do object, I'll decide. MS. MODE: Yes, your Honor. I just wanted to clear that in advance. THE COURT: Thank you. Okay. What do you have, Ms. Menninger? MS. MENNINGER: Under the authority of Rule 611(c), I have redrafted it into a leading question, if that's permissible, your Honor. And what I would ask is --",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012186",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Mode",
      "Ms. Sternheim",
      "Ms. Menninger",
      "Matt"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "745",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012186"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}