{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "103",
    "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 103 of 127\nLB15max4\n1 THE COURT: (Continuing)\n2 The government also correctly notes that the delay in time between the alleged misconduct and identification is not determinative because of the frequency of interactions between the alleged individual and Ms. Maxwell. Alleged Victim 4 was able to identify Ms. Maxwell when she got to the photo in the array with little hesitation. The argument that -- I will leave it at that.\n3\n4\n5\n6\n7\n8\n9 The defense requested an evidentiary hearing on this issue but I don't see facts put forward by the defense that puts, in genuine dispute, any facts that would support suppression of the identification so there would be nothing gained from an evidentiary rehearing, see United States v. Brown, 784 F. App'x 1 (2d Cir. 2019) so the request is denied.\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15 Defense 10. Expert testimony by law enforcement officers which the defense moves to exclude and the government has noticed intent to call three law enforcement officers as fact witnesses but not as experts. The government represents that it will not elicit expert testimony from any of them.\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20 So, the law enforcement officers can testify as fact witnesses to the facts that they personally perceived but not provide testimony that summarizes parts of the investigation which the officer did not personally experience and may not provide testimony that relies on specialized training and experience. The government's example of a law enforcement\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00007154",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 103 of 127",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LB15max4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 THE COURT: (Continuing)\n2 The government also correctly notes that the delay in time between the alleged misconduct and identification is not determinative because of the frequency of interactions between the alleged individual and Ms. Maxwell. Alleged Victim 4 was able to identify Ms. Maxwell when she got to the photo in the array with little hesitation. The argument that -- I will leave it at that.\n9 The defense requested an evidentiary hearing on this issue but I don't see facts put forward by the defense that puts, in genuine dispute, any facts that would support suppression of the identification so there would be nothing gained from an evidentiary rehearing, see United States v. Brown, 784 F. App'x 1 (2d Cir. 2019) so the request is denied.\n15 Defense 10. Expert testimony by law enforcement officers which the defense moves to exclude and the government has noticed intent to call three law enforcement officers as fact witnesses but not as experts. The government represents that it will not elicit expert testimony from any of them.\n20 So, the law enforcement officers can testify as fact witnesses to the facts that they personally perceived but not provide testimony that summarizes parts of the investigation which the officer did not personally experience and may not provide testimony that relies on specialized training and experience. The government's example of a law enforcement",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007154",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Alleged Victim 4"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "784 F. App'x 1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007154"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}