DOJ-OGR-00012687.json 3.9 KB

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546
  1. {
  2. "document_metadata": {
  3. "page_number": "173",
  4. "document_number": "749",
  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 749 Filed 08/10/22 Page 173 of 236 1077 LC3KMAX6 Parkinson - Direct appropriate, but in the absence of that, I won't allow it in simply based on her description of what it looked like then. You have that description in, so I'll sustain the objection based on the current record. MS. MOE: Your Honor, just so I understand the scope of the Court's ruling, is that to all photographs of the interior of the residence? I guess my confusion is, in particular, with respect to the massage room, she described several objects that are depicted in these photographs and -- THE COURT: Right, but over 20 years later. So if you wanted to ask her if it's the same objects, you should have, or you could have, or you can, but in the absence of that, we're talking about highly mobile items. The law does not support inclusion in this context without a witness testifying as to the similarity of what -- you're trying to corroborate that these photos show what it looked like then. You have a witness who can do that, but in the absence of that, I'm sustaining the objection. I don't see any basis to distinguish between 15-, 20-year-old, or more, distinction between her description and the photographs. MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Given that defense counsel raised this objection today, we'd just ask for an opportunity to brief this issue over the weekend. We could potentially shift the order of our witnesses in order to address that -- or maybe I should confer SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00012687",
  11. "text_blocks": [
  12. {
  13. "type": "printed",
  14. "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 749 Filed 08/10/22 Page 173 of 236 1077 LC3KMAX6 Parkinson - Direct",
  15. "position": "header"
  16. },
  17. {
  18. "type": "printed",
  19. "content": "appropriate, but in the absence of that, I won't allow it in simply based on her description of what it looked like then. You have that description in, so I'll sustain the objection based on the current record. MS. MOE: Your Honor, just so I understand the scope of the Court's ruling, is that to all photographs of the interior of the residence? I guess my confusion is, in particular, with respect to the massage room, she described several objects that are depicted in these photographs and -- THE COURT: Right, but over 20 years later. So if you wanted to ask her if it's the same objects, you should have, or you could have, or you can, but in the absence of that, we're talking about highly mobile items. The law does not support inclusion in this context without a witness testifying as to the similarity of what -- you're trying to corroborate that these photos show what it looked like then. You have a witness who can do that, but in the absence of that, I'm sustaining the objection. I don't see any basis to distinguish between 15-, 20-year-old, or more, distinction between her description and the photographs. MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Given that defense counsel raised this objection today, we'd just ask for an opportunity to brief this issue over the weekend. We could potentially shift the order of our witnesses in order to address that -- or maybe I should confer",
  20. "position": "main"
  21. },
  22. {
  23. "type": "printed",
  24. "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00012687",
  25. "position": "footer"
  26. }
  27. ],
  28. "entities": {
  29. "people": [
  30. "MS. MOE"
  31. ],
  32. "organizations": [
  33. "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
  34. ],
  35. "locations": [],
  36. "dates": [
  37. "08/10/22"
  38. ],
  39. "reference_numbers": [
  40. "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
  41. "749",
  42. "DOJ-OGR-00012687"
  43. ]
  44. },
  45. "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
  46. }