DOJ-OGR-00012232.json 4.0 KB

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061
  1. {
  2. "document_metadata": {
  3. "page_number": "212",
  4. "document_number": "745",
  5. "date": "08/10/22",
  6. "document_type": "court transcript",
  7. "has_handwriting": false,
  8. "has_stamps": false
  9. },
  10. "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 212 of 264 623 LC1Qmax6 Jane - Redirect that, but again, we're talking about a number of conversations during this time period. That's my current expectation. But I think with respect to I think some of the granular issues, the difference between woman and girls, I think, especially in this context is not so different that it would not be a prior consistent statement. And beyond that, your Honor, we think this tracks the rule. MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I disagree. The distinction between a girl and a woman is precisely what this case is about, and she was very clear that she felt like she was the only one. The other people were women. THE COURT: She said she didn't know what their ages were. MS. STERNHEIM: She didn't know their ages, but she did not refer to them as girls. THE COURT: But wasn't the recent testimony, I think it was on cross, which was: Were there underage girls. And she said, \"I wouldn't know the ages.\" MS. STERNHEIM: That's fine, but to call them girls connotes that they are minors, and that parlays right into the government's theory of the case, and they're bringing it out through a witness whose sole purpose is substantiated prior consistent statement, and that is not consistent with the testimony that we've heard. If he wants to say there were prior women, I can't SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00012232",
  11. "text_blocks": [
  12. {
  13. "type": "printed",
  14. "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 212 of 264 623 LC1Qmax6 Jane - Redirect",
  15. "position": "header"
  16. },
  17. {
  18. "type": "printed",
  19. "content": "that, but again, we're talking about a number of conversations during this time period. That's my current expectation. But I think with respect to I think some of the granular issues, the difference between woman and girls, I think, especially in this context is not so different that it would not be a prior consistent statement. And beyond that, your Honor, we think this tracks the rule.",
  20. "position": "top"
  21. },
  22. {
  23. "type": "printed",
  24. "content": "MS. STERNHEIM: Judge, I disagree. The distinction between a girl and a woman is precisely what this case is about, and she was very clear that she felt like she was the only one. The other people were women.",
  25. "position": "middle"
  26. },
  27. {
  28. "type": "printed",
  29. "content": "THE COURT: She said she didn't know what their ages were. MS. STERNHEIM: She didn't know their ages, but she did not refer to them as girls. THE COURT: But wasn't the recent testimony, I think it was on cross, which was: Were there underage girls. And she said, \"I wouldn't know the ages.\" MS. STERNHEIM: That's fine, but to call them girls connotes that they are minors, and that parlays right into the government's theory of the case, and they're bringing it out through a witness whose sole purpose is substantiated prior consistent statement, and that is not consistent with the testimony that we've heard. If he wants to say there were prior women, I can't",
  30. "position": "middle"
  31. },
  32. {
  33. "type": "printed",
  34. "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  35. "position": "footer"
  36. },
  37. {
  38. "type": "printed",
  39. "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012232",
  40. "position": "footer"
  41. }
  42. ],
  43. "entities": {
  44. "people": [
  45. "MS. STERNHEIM"
  46. ],
  47. "organizations": [
  48. "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
  49. ],
  50. "locations": [],
  51. "dates": [
  52. "08/10/22"
  53. ],
  54. "reference_numbers": [
  55. "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
  56. "745",
  57. "DOJ-OGR-00012232"
  58. ]
  59. },
  60. "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
  61. }