DOJ-OGR-00013876.json 4.0 KB

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657
  1. {
  2. "document_metadata": {
  3. "page_number": "17",
  4. "document_number": "761",
  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 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 17 of 246 2312 LCGVMAX1 we would also like to include, which is information that Mr. Grumbridge would have about the Stanhope Mews ownership prior to this, because he was the lawyer and solicitor involved in that transaction as well, from my understanding. So I think it's -- to make the same point. But if we're going to lose his testimony, because I think it's relevant testimony, I would like to get in all parts of his testimony that I think are relevant to this issue of ownership. MR. ROHRBACH: We're happy to confer with defense counsel and try to work something out. I would just note that defense counsel has not produced any records to the government showing this prior ownership of Stanhope Mews. THE COURT: All right. MR. ROHRBACH: We'll confer with the defense and try to work out a stipulation. THE COURT: Great. Thank you. Okay. All right. Moving on to the Dr. Loftus testimony. So I got the letter dated December 15th in which the government seeks to exclude two aspects of Dr. Loftus's anticipated expert testimony on suggestive activities: Her testimony on the use of leading questions by government investigators, and her anticipated testimony on the therapist technique of response pressure to provide more detail about a patient's experience. In an order dated November 21st, 2021, I ruled that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013876",
  11. "text_blocks": [
  12. {
  13. "type": "printed",
  14. "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 17 of 246 2312 LCGVMAX1",
  15. "position": "header"
  16. },
  17. {
  18. "type": "printed",
  19. "content": "we would also like to include, which is information that Mr. Grumbridge would have about the Stanhope Mews ownership prior to this, because he was the lawyer and solicitor involved in that transaction as well, from my understanding. So I think it's -- to make the same point. But if we're going to lose his testimony, because I think it's relevant testimony, I would like to get in all parts of his testimony that I think are relevant to this issue of ownership. MR. ROHRBACH: We're happy to confer with defense counsel and try to work something out. I would just note that defense counsel has not produced any records to the government showing this prior ownership of Stanhope Mews. THE COURT: All right. MR. ROHRBACH: We'll confer with the defense and try to work out a stipulation. THE COURT: Great. Thank you. Okay. All right. Moving on to the Dr. Loftus testimony. So I got the letter dated December 15th in which the government seeks to exclude two aspects of Dr. Loftus's anticipated expert testimony on suggestive activities: Her testimony on the use of leading questions by government investigators, and her anticipated testimony on the therapist technique of response pressure to provide more detail about a patient's experience. In an order dated November 21st, 2021, I ruled that",
  20. "position": "main content"
  21. },
  22. {
  23. "type": "printed",
  24. "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  25. "position": "footer"
  26. },
  27. {
  28. "type": "printed",
  29. "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013876",
  30. "position": "footer"
  31. }
  32. ],
  33. "entities": {
  34. "people": [
  35. "Mr. Grumbridge",
  36. "Dr. Loftus",
  37. "MR. ROHRBACH"
  38. ],
  39. "organizations": [
  40. "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
  41. ],
  42. "locations": [
  43. "Stanhope Mews"
  44. ],
  45. "dates": [
  46. "December 15th",
  47. "November 21st, 2021",
  48. "08/10/22"
  49. ],
  50. "reference_numbers": [
  51. "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
  52. "761",
  53. "DOJ-OGR-00013876"
  54. ]
  55. },
  56. "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
  57. }