{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "17",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 17 of 127\nLB1TMAX1\n\nFourth, the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to meaningful cross-examination of government witnesses at trial. United States v. Figueroa, 548 F.3d 222, (2d Cir. 2008). Indeed, cross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, (1974). With this legal framework in mind, and in light of the parties' extensive briefing on these issues, I think the admissibility of some of the proposed evidence can be determined now, but the admissibility of other evidence will require additional facts and the context of trial to decide, but I think it's important for me to give guidance. Based on the papers before me, I provide the following guidance: First, the Court will preclude affirmative evidence by the defense that goes to the thoroughness of the investigation. Although evidence that goes to the thoroughness of the government's investigation can in some cases be relevant and may in some cases be admissible, it's not relevant or admissible if not probative of the defendant's guilt of the crimes charged. In its briefing, the defense relies heavily on Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 4 (1995), in which the Supreme Court held that an informant's statements to police were material for purposes of Brady disclosures because the statements could be SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007068",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 17 of 127",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LB1TMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Fourth, the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to meaningful cross-examination of government witnesses at trial. United States v. Figueroa, 548 F.3d 222, (2d Cir. 2008). Indeed, cross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, (1974). With this legal framework in mind, and in light of the parties' extensive briefing on these issues, I think the admissibility of some of the proposed evidence can be determined now, but the admissibility of other evidence will require additional facts and the context of trial to decide, but I think it's important for me to give guidance. Based on the papers before me, I provide the following guidance: First, the Court will preclude affirmative evidence by the defense that goes to the thoroughness of the investigation. Although evidence that goes to the thoroughness of the government's investigation can in some cases be relevant and may in some cases be admissible, it's not relevant or admissible if not probative of the defendant's guilt of the crimes charged. In its briefing, the defense relies heavily on Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 4 (1995), in which the Supreme Court held that an informant's statements to police were material for purposes of Brady disclosures because the statements could be",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007068",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Alaska"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21",
      "2008",
      "1974",
      "1995"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007068"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}