mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014129.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "23",
    "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 23 of 197 2564\nLCFCmax1\n1 notes.\n2 Third, as I previously explained, testimony that a\n3 witness does not recall making a statement may be but is not\n4 necessarily a basis for inconsistency.\n5 Finally, I'll apply 403, consistent with my prior\n6 rulings of prior inconsistent statement has already been read\n7 in full into the record. I'll sustain the government's\n8 objection to admitting the statement as extrinsic evidence.\n9 See, for example, United States v. King, 560 F.2d 122\n10 (2d Cir. 1977). Stating where evidence is admissible under\n11 613, it could be excluded under 403.\n12 With that, we can turn to the list of the prior\n13 statements and I'll do my best to apply that guidance I've just\n14 given in light of the arguments raised by the parties and my\n15 review of the transcript.\n16 So beginning with Jane, transcript at 447, I will\n17 overrule. Jane denied the statement in the handwritten notes,\n18 which is an inconsistency, even if the later 302 corroborates\n19 Jane's testimony. I will overrule that government objection.\n20 Transcript at 455, I'll sustain the government's\n21 objection for two reasons. The full statement was read into\n22 the record and Jane responded it was, quote, correct, I guess,\n23 admitting the statement.\n24 Transcript at 470 to 71, overruled. Here the defense\n25 has adequately identified the statement at issue.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014129",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 23 of 197 2564",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LCFCmax1\n1 notes.\n2 Third, as I previously explained, testimony that a\n3 witness does not recall making a statement may be but is not\n4 necessarily a basis for inconsistency.\n5 Finally, I'll apply 403, consistent with my prior\n6 rulings of prior inconsistent statement has already been read\n7 in full into the record. I'll sustain the government's\n8 objection to admitting the statement as extrinsic evidence.\n9 See, for example, United States v. King, 560 F.2d 122\n10 (2d Cir. 1977). Stating where evidence is admissible under\n11 613, it could be excluded under 403.\n12 With that, we can turn to the list of the prior\n13 statements and I'll do my best to apply that guidance I've just\n14 given in light of the arguments raised by the parties and my\n15 review of the transcript.\n16 So beginning with Jane, transcript at 447, I will\n17 overrule. Jane denied the statement in the handwritten notes,\n18 which is an inconsistency, even if the later 302 corroborates\n19 Jane's testimony. I will overrule that government objection.\n20 Transcript at 455, I'll sustain the government's\n21 objection for two reasons. The full statement was read into\n22 the record and Jane responded it was, quote, correct, I guess,\n23 admitting the statement.\n24 Transcript at 470 to 71, overruled. Here the defense\n25 has adequately identified the statement at issue.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014129",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "King"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "1977"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014129"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}