| 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061 |
- {
- "document_metadata": {
- "page_number": "212",
- "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 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",
- "text_blocks": [
- {
- "type": "printed",
- "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 745 Filed 08/10/22 Page 212 of 264 623 LC1Qmax6 Jane - Redirect",
- "position": "header"
- },
- {
- "type": "printed",
- "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.",
- "position": "top"
- },
- {
- "type": "printed",
- "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.",
- "position": "middle"
- },
- {
- "type": "printed",
- "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",
- "position": "middle"
- },
- {
- "type": "printed",
- "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
- "position": "footer"
- },
- {
- "type": "printed",
- "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012232",
- "position": "footer"
- }
- ],
- "entities": {
- "people": [
- "MS. STERNHEIM"
- ],
- "organizations": [
- "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
- ],
- "locations": [],
- "dates": [
- "08/10/22"
- ],
- "reference_numbers": [
- "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
- "745",
- "DOJ-OGR-00012232"
- ]
- },
- "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
- }
|