mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014126.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 20 of 197 2561 LCFCmax1\na pseudonym?\nMS. MENNINGER: No, it was not, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: Okay. Just wanted to ask that.\nSecond, the parties seeking to offer extrinsic\nevidence of a prior inconsistent statement must have laid a\nproper foundation for doing so by affording, A, the witness an\nopportunity to explain or deny the prior inconsistent\nstatement; and B, the opposite party an opportunity to question\nthe witness about it.\nThird, the extrinsic evidence of the prior\ninconsistent statement must be competent and otherwise\nadmissible.\nFourth, the impeachment by prior inconsistent\nstatement must relate to material rather than a collateral\nmatter.\nFinally, even if all these requirements have been\nsatisfied, the trial court nevertheless may exclude the\nextrinsic evidence under Rule 403 on an appropriate finding.\nThat's United States v. Gulani, 761 F. Supp. 2d 114. (S.D.N.Y.\n2011).\nAt issue first is step 2, whether the witness being\nimpeached had an opportunity to explain or deny the statement.\nParties have diametrically opposed interpretations of this\nrequirement, but in support of its position that the witness\nneed not be shown the prior statement. The defense has\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014126",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 20 of 197 2561 LCFCmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "a pseudonym?\nMS. MENNINGER: No, it was not, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: Okay. Just wanted to ask that.\nSecond, the parties seeking to offer extrinsic\nevidence of a prior inconsistent statement must have laid a\nproper foundation for doing so by affording, A, the witness an\nopportunity to explain or deny the prior inconsistent\nstatement; and B, the opposite party an opportunity to question\nthe witness about it.\nThird, the extrinsic evidence of the prior\ninconsistent statement must be competent and otherwise\nadmissible.\nFourth, the impeachment by prior inconsistent\nstatement must relate to material rather than a collateral\nmatter.\nFinally, even if all these requirements have been\nsatisfied, the trial court nevertheless may exclude the\nextrinsic evidence under Rule 403 on an appropriate finding.\nThat's United States v. Gulani, 761 F. Supp. 2d 114. (S.D.N.Y.\n2011).\nAt issue first is step 2, whether the witness being\nimpeached had an opportunity to explain or deny the statement.\nParties have diametrically opposed interpretations of this\nrequirement, but in support of its position that the witness\nneed not be shown the prior statement. The defense has",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "other",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014126",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MENNINGER"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "2011"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014126"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}