{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "62",
    "document_number": "439",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 62 of 69\n\nVIII. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO LIMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF MS. MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD BE DENIED AT THIS TIME\n\nHearsay is a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Fed. R. Evid. 801. Hearsay is not admissible unless allowed by a federal statute; the Federal Rules of Evidence or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Fed. R. Evid. 802.\n\n\"The hearsay rule is designed to prevent the admission of unreliable hearsay but to permit through its many exceptions the admission of reliable hearsay.\" Ferrier v. Duckworth, 902 F.2d 545, 547 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 988 (1990).\n\nCounsel for Ms. Maxwell understand the Federal Rules of Evidence and intend to follow them. Notably, there are dozens of exceptions to the hearsay exclusionary rule, many of which could be applicable at any trial in this case, for example, those contained in Fed. R. Evid. 803(1) through 803(23). Ms. Maxwell has not moved in limine to admit any hearsay statement, and the government does not identify any statement made by Ms. Maxwell that it believes will be at issue in this trial. Basically, the government is asking the Court to enter an order directing the parties to follow the Rules of Evidence.\n\nThe failure of the government to identify any statement or circumstance where a statement might be offered makes it impossible for the Court to rule on the admissibility of this unknown evidence. As noted by the court in Velez v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., No. 04 CIV. 9194 CM, 2010 WL 11043081, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2010), the \"motion to exclude hearsay' ... is yet another example of the improper use of in limine motions. . . .\" Denying the motion, the court directed the following solution: \"If a witness is asked for hearsay testimony, an attorney... should stand up and object, and the Court will rule.\" Id.\n\n54\nDOJ-OGR-00006479",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 62 of 69",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "VIII. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO LIMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF MS. MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD BE DENIED AT THIS TIME",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Hearsay is a statement that: (1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and (2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Fed. R. Evid. 801. Hearsay is not admissible unless allowed by a federal statute; the Federal Rules of Evidence or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Fed. R. Evid. 802.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"The hearsay rule is designed to prevent the admission of unreliable hearsay but to permit through its many exceptions the admission of reliable hearsay.\" Ferrier v. Duckworth, 902 F.2d 545, 547 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 988 (1990).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Counsel for Ms. Maxwell understand the Federal Rules of Evidence and intend to follow them. Notably, there are dozens of exceptions to the hearsay exclusionary rule, many of which could be applicable at any trial in this case, for example, those contained in Fed. R. Evid. 803(1) through 803(23). Ms. Maxwell has not moved in limine to admit any hearsay statement, and the government does not identify any statement made by Ms. Maxwell that it believes will be at issue in this trial. Basically, the government is asking the Court to enter an order directing the parties to follow the Rules of Evidence.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The failure of the government to identify any statement or circumstance where a statement might be offered makes it impossible for the Court to rule on the admissibility of this unknown evidence. As noted by the court in Velez v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., No. 04 CIV. 9194 CM, 2010 WL 11043081, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2010), the \"motion to exclude hearsay' ... is yet another example of the improper use of in limine motions. . . .\" Denying the motion, the court directed the following solution: \"If a witness is asked for hearsay testimony, an attorney... should stand up and object, and the Court will rule.\" Id.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "54",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006479",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21",
      "Feb. 25, 2010"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 439",
      "902 F.2d 545",
      "498 U.S. 988",
      "04 CIV. 9194 CM",
      "2010 WL 11043081",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006479"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the rules of evidence and hearsay, and argues that the government's motion to limit the introduction of Ms. Maxwell's statements is premature."
}