{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "88",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 88 of 127 88 LB1TMAX3 instruction that makes clear that any alleged conduct was lawful and cannot form the basis of a conviction in this case certainly would be required to ensure that probative value is not substantially outweighed by potential prejudice. So that's my thinking. I'm going to need more from the government on the anticipated testimony. I want to see a proposed limiting instruction that would go to that, and I want briefing on whether there might be a basis for direct evidence as to the trafficking count. So I will ask the government here for a submission that outlines anticipated testimony that would be potentially 404(b) with respect to the Mann Act counts, as I've indicated, a proposed limiting instruction in that regard, and to the extent the government does have I think a not-yet-really-thought-through argument about direct evidence as to the trafficking act, I'm open to hearing it. So let me look at the calendar. I will get briefing from the government and then a response time from the defense. Government by the 5th, defense response by the 10th. Questions about that, Ms. Moe? MS. MOE: No, your Honor, thank you. THE COURT: Mr. Everdell? MR. EVERDELL: No questions on this schedule or the Court's direction. We would like to clarify one thing, which I believe the Court said that the parties agree that this SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007139",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 88 of 127 88",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LB1TMAX3 instruction that makes clear that any alleged conduct was lawful and cannot form the basis of a conviction in this case certainly would be required to ensure that probative value is not substantially outweighed by potential prejudice. So that's my thinking. I'm going to need more from the government on the anticipated testimony. I want to see a proposed limiting instruction that would go to that, and I want briefing on whether there might be a basis for direct evidence as to the trafficking count. So I will ask the government here for a submission that outlines anticipated testimony that would be potentially 404(b) with respect to the Mann Act counts, as I've indicated, a proposed limiting instruction in that regard, and to the extent the government does have I think a not-yet-really-thought-through argument about direct evidence as to the trafficking act, I'm open to hearing it. So let me look at the calendar. I will get briefing from the government and then a response time from the defense. Government by the 5th, defense response by the 10th. Questions about that, Ms. Moe? MS. MOE: No, your Honor, thank you. THE COURT: Mr. Everdell? MR. EVERDELL: No questions on this schedule or the Court's direction. We would like to clarify one thing, which I believe the Court said that the parties agree that this",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007139",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Moe",
      "Mr. Everdell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21",
      "5th",
      "10th"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007139"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}