{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "34 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 34 of 84\nexhibits, all of which were in the Government's discovery productions. The Government also provided the defense with Jencks Act materials for all trial witnesses that same day, including detailed notes and reports of the Government's interviews of the witness referenced in the letter.\nThe defendant now moves to exclude this evidence, arguing, among other things, that the Government has not provided sufficient notice of the evidence it intends to offer at trial under Rule 404(b). For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion lacks merit, and should be denied.\nThe Government has provided detailed notice, well in advance of trial. This evidence is admissible on multiple grounds, and the jury should be permitted to consider it.\nA. Applicable Law\nRelevant evidence is \"not confined to that which directly establishes an element of the crime.\" United States v. Gonzalez, 110 F.3d 941, 942 (2d Cir. 1997). As the Second Circuit has explained, \"[t]o be relevant, evidence need only tend to prove the government's case, and evidence that adds context and dimension to the government's proof of the charges can have that tendency.\"\nId.; accord United States v. Coonan, 938 F.2d 1553, 1561 (2d Cir. 1991). The Second Circuit has repeatedly held that actions and statements are admissible as direct evidence of the crimes charged, and are \"not considered other crimes evidence under\" Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), if (a) they \"arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense,\" (b) they are \"inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense,\" or (c) they are \"necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial.\" Carboni, 204 F.3d at 44; see also United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 309 (2d Cir. 2007); United States v. Baez, 349 F.3d 90, 93-94 (2d Cir. 2003). In those circumstances, the uncharged crimes evidence is \"appropriately treated",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 34 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "exhibits, all of which were in the Government's discovery productions. The Government also provided the defense with Jencks Act materials for all trial witnesses that same day, including detailed notes and reports of the Government's interviews of the witness referenced in the letter.\nThe defendant now moves to exclude this evidence, arguing, among other things, that the Government has not provided sufficient notice of the evidence it intends to offer at trial under Rule 404(b). For the reasons set forth below, the defendant's motion lacks merit, and should be denied.\nThe Government has provided detailed notice, well in advance of trial. This evidence is admissible on multiple grounds, and the jury should be permitted to consider it.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Applicable Law",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Relevant evidence is \"not confined to that which directly establishes an element of the crime.\" United States v. Gonzalez, 110 F.3d 941, 942 (2d Cir. 1997). As the Second Circuit has explained, \"[t]o be relevant, evidence need only tend to prove the government's case, and evidence that adds context and dimension to the government's proof of the charges can have that tendency.\"\nId.; accord United States v. Coonan, 938 F.2d 1553, 1561 (2d Cir. 1991). The Second Circuit has repeatedly held that actions and statements are admissible as direct evidence of the crimes charged, and are \"not considered other crimes evidence under\" Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), if (a) they \"arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense,\" (b) they are \"inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense,\" or (c) they are \"necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial.\" Carboni, 204 F.3d at 44; see also United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 309 (2d Cir. 2007); United States v. Baez, 349 F.3d 90, 93-94 (2d Cir. 2003). In those circumstances, the uncharged crimes evidence is \"appropriately treated",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "33",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005817",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "1997",
      "1991",
      "2007",
      "2003"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "397",
      "110 F.3d 941",
      "938 F.2d 1553",
      "511 F.3d 289",
      "349 F.3d 90",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005817"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}