DOJ-OGR-00018463.pdf

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 126 of 261 1287 LC6VMAX4 But the witness was able to testify fully about the issue, and she testified fully about the matter; and there was no, you know, inconsistency or prior inconsistent statement. It should not be admitted into evidence. THE COURT: My read on it at the time was that the only discrepancy was -- the implied discrepancy was whether pictures were actually sent, but the email doesn't go to that; so it seems to me that her testimony was what was reflected in the email. What am I missing? MS. STERNHEIM: May I have just a moment? THE COURT: You may. And I suppose, to put a fine point on the question, as Ms. Pomerantz says, what is it that the witness could not recall well enough to testify fully and accurately? MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, it's my understanding -- THE COURT: I'm sorry, at the mic please. MS. STERNHEIM: I apologize. THE COURT: That's okay. MS. STERNHEIM: Past recollection recorded does not have to be inconsistent. THE COURT: Okay. That's not the question. So just a record that sub A is on a matter the witness once knew about, but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately. So what couldn't the witness testify fully and SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00018463