DOJ-OGR-00016752.jpg
589 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
589 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, in which a judge is making rulings on the admissibility of a witness's prior statements. The judge explains the legal basis for their decisions, citing case law, and then rules on specific objections related to the testimony of a witness named Jane. The judge overrules some objections and sustains others based on whether Jane denied or admitted to the statements in question.
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the legal case citation "United States v. King".
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the court reporting service that produced the transcript.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (1)
government
→
Adversarial (legal)
→
defense
The document details the judge ruling on objections made by the government and actions taken by the defense, indicating their opposing roles in a legal proceeding.
Key Quotes (1)
"correct, I guess"Source
— Jane
(Jane's response when a prior statement was read into the record, which the judge interprets as her admitting the statement.)
DOJ-OGR-00016752.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,483 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 23 of 197 2564
LCFCmax1
LCFCmax1
1 notes.
2 Third, as I previously explained, testimony that a
3 witness does not recall making a statement may be but is not
4 necessarily a basis for inconsistency.
5 Finally, I'll apply 403, consistent with my prior
6 rulings of prior inconsistent statement has already been read
7 in full into the record. I'll sustain the government's
8 objection to admitting the statement as extrinsic evidence.
9 See, for example, United States v. King, 560 F.2d 122
10 (2d Cir. 1977). Stating where evidence is admissible under
11 613, it could be excluded under 403.
12 With that, we can turn to the list of the prior
13 statements and I'll do my best to apply that guidance I've just
14 given in light of the arguments raised by the parties and my
15 review of the transcript.
16 So beginning with Jane, transcript at 447, I will
17 overrule. Jane denied the statement in the handwritten notes,
18 which is an inconsistency, even if the later 302 corroborates
19 Jane's testimony. I will overrule that government objection.
20 Transcript at 455, I'll sustain the government's
21 objection for two reasons. The full statement was read into
22 the record and Jane responded it was, quote, correct, I guess,
23 admitting the statement.
24 Transcript at 470 to 71, overruled. Here the defense
25 has adequately identified the statement at issue.
2 Third, as I previously explained, testimony that a
3 witness does not recall making a statement may be but is not
4 necessarily a basis for inconsistency.
5 Finally, I'll apply 403, consistent with my prior
6 rulings of prior inconsistent statement has already been read
7 in full into the record. I'll sustain the government's
8 objection to admitting the statement as extrinsic evidence.
9 See, for example, United States v. King, 560 F.2d 122
10 (2d Cir. 1977). Stating where evidence is admissible under
11 613, it could be excluded under 403.
12 With that, we can turn to the list of the prior
13 statements and I'll do my best to apply that guidance I've just
14 given in light of the arguments raised by the parties and my
15 review of the transcript.
16 So beginning with Jane, transcript at 447, I will
17 overrule. Jane denied the statement in the handwritten notes,
18 which is an inconsistency, even if the later 302 corroborates
19 Jane's testimony. I will overrule that government objection.
20 Transcript at 455, I'll sustain the government's
21 objection for two reasons. The full statement was read into
22 the record and Jane responded it was, quote, correct, I guess,
23 admitting the statement.
24 Transcript at 470 to 71, overruled. Here the defense
25 has adequately identified the statement at issue.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016752
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document