{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "58",
    "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 58 of 127 58 LB15MAX2 post-dating the alleged conspiracy. For example, there are documents -- I don't know, they weren't specified which documents that this witness intends to authenticate, but among the documents that I believe the witness may attempt to authenticate, they are dated in 2005 and beyond. And so the question really is whether you can -- it is an authentication one, whether that relates to the conspiracy or not. As we set forth in our reply, your Honor, there is a real concern because a number of, I think, the entire first series of exhibits, are largely taken from a period outside of the charged conspiracy. I think this witness may attempt to authenticate some of those exhibits and they haven't established why that will be relevant to the charged time period of the conspiracy. They really didn't argue 404(b) on this point and we asked for additional time in terms of the direct evidence because we had just received these 400 pages that relate to that particular witness, your Honor. THE COURT: So the basic contention would be if we have a document that, on its face, that post-dates the charged conspiracy. I mean that, alone, is I think the first point of your objection, right? MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: The authentication issue aside. What is the relevance of a document that, on its face, post-dates the charged conspiracy? Let's start with that, Ms. Moe. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007109",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 58 of 127 58 LB15MAX2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "post-dating the alleged conspiracy. For example, there are documents -- I don't know, they weren't specified which documents that this witness intends to authenticate, but among the documents that I believe the witness may attempt to authenticate, they are dated in 2005 and beyond. And so the question really is whether you can -- it is an authentication one, whether that relates to the conspiracy or not. As we set forth in our reply, your Honor, there is a real concern because a number of, I think, the entire first series of exhibits, are largely taken from a period outside of the charged conspiracy. I think this witness may attempt to authenticate some of those exhibits and they haven't established why that will be relevant to the charged time period of the conspiracy. They really didn't argue 404(b) on this point and we asked for additional time in terms of the direct evidence because we had just received these 400 pages that relate to that particular witness, your Honor.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "THE COURT: So the basic contention would be if we have a document that, on its face, that post-dates the charged conspiracy. I mean that, alone, is I think the first point of your objection, right?",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "THE COURT: The authentication issue aside. What is the relevance of a document that, on its face, post-dates the charged conspiracy? Let's start with that, Ms. Moe.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007109",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Menninger",
      "Ms. Moe"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21",
      "2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007109"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}