{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "72 of 84",
    "document_number": "397",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 72 of 84\n\nVI. The Court Should Deny the Defense Motions to Preclude the Government's Exhibits\n\nThe defense has filed several motions to preclude certain Government exhibits. (Def. Mots. 7, 8, and 13). The Court should deny the defense authentication arguments without prejudice because the Government expects its witnesses will be able to authenticate the exhibits at trial before it offers them. The defendant's arguments regarding relevance and Rule 403, however, are meritless, and the Court should deny them.\n\nA. Applicable Law\n\nIn general, \"[t]o satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.\" Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). The Second Circuit has made clear that \"the bar for authentication of evidence is not particularly high.\" United States v. El Gammal, 831 F. App'x 539, 542 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) (quoting United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140, 151 (2d Cir. 2007)). Rule 901 is \"satisfied if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification,\" El Gammal, 831 F. App'x at 542 (quoting United States v. Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31, 38 (2d Cir. 2004)), and such \"proof of authentication may be direct or circumstantial,\" United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139, 172 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).\n\nFor instance, in United States v. Al Farekh, 810 F. App'x 21 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order), the defendant challenged the authenticity of \"handwritten letters that were found in a USB drive that was handed to an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Afghanistan.\" Id. at 24. The Second Circuit rejected the challenge. \"Although the Government did not present\n\n71\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005855",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 72 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "VI. The Court Should Deny the Defense Motions to Preclude the Government's Exhibits",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defense has filed several motions to preclude certain Government exhibits. (Def. Mots. 7, 8, and 13). The Court should deny the defense authentication arguments without prejudice because the Government expects its witnesses will be able to authenticate the exhibits at trial before it offers them. The defendant's arguments regarding relevance and Rule 403, however, are meritless, and the Court should deny them.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Applicable Law",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In general, \"[t]o satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.\" Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). The Second Circuit has made clear that \"the bar for authentication of evidence is not particularly high.\" United States v. El Gammal, 831 F. App'x 539, 542 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) (quoting United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140, 151 (2d Cir. 2007)). Rule 901 is \"satisfied if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification,\" El Gammal, 831 F. App'x at 542 (quoting United States v. Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31, 38 (2d Cir. 2004)), and such \"proof of authentication may be direct or circumstantial,\" United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139, 172 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For instance, in United States v. Al Farekh, 810 F. App'x 21 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order), the defendant challenged the authenticity of \"handwritten letters that were found in a USB drive that was handed to an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Afghanistan.\" Id. at 24. The Second Circuit rejected the challenge. \"Although the Government did not present",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "71",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005855",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Federal Bureau of Investigation"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Afghanistan"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "397",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005855"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content. There are no stamps or signatures visible in the image. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}