{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "54",
    "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 54 of 127 54 LB15MAX2\n\n1 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. That's fine.\n2 THE COURT: Thank you.\n3 Defendants 2 is the admission of certain evidence outlined in the government's 404(b) letter dated October 11, 2021. First, as to the defense argument that there has been an inadequate notice under 404(b), I disagree because the government's letter and briefing between the government's letter and the briefing here, the defendant has \"reasonable notice\" of any 404(b) evidence so the question is whether the evidence can be properly admitted. I think there is two categories of evidence, the first goes to e-mails, and I will speak in the just general description which I think is appropriate. The government may have attempted to redact some general description and to the extent that you have, I disagree with that but I will speak generally -- I'm sorry, the defense requested redaction as to some general description but I don't think it's appropriate. So I'm going to ask the government, if this understanding is correct, that the e-mails reflect instances of the defendant setting up dates that involve women over the age of consent.\n21 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think as we noted in our briefing, for some of the documents it is unclear what the age range is.\n24 THE COURT: So you wouldn't be able to prove that it was under the age of consent?\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00007105",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 54 of 127 54 LB15MAX2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. That's fine.\n2 THE COURT: Thank you.\n3 Defendants 2 is the admission of certain evidence outlined in the government's 404(b) letter dated October 11, 2021. First, as to the defense argument that there has been an inadequate notice under 404(b), I disagree because the government's letter and briefing between the government's letter and the briefing here, the defendant has \"reasonable notice\" of any 404(b) evidence so the question is whether the evidence can be properly admitted. I think there is two categories of evidence, the first goes to e-mails, and I will speak in the just general description which I think is appropriate. The government may have attempted to redact some general description and to the extent that you have, I disagree with that but I will speak generally -- I'm sorry, the defense requested redaction as to some general description but I don't think it's appropriate. So I'm going to ask the government, if this understanding is correct, that the e-mails reflect instances of the defendant setting up dates that involve women over the age of consent.\n21 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think as we noted in our briefing, for some of the documents it is unclear what the age range is.\n24 THE COURT: So you wouldn't be able to prove that it was under the age of consent?",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007105",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. PAGLIUCA",
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "October 11, 2021",
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007105"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the text."
}