{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "93",
    "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 93 of 127 93 LB1TMAX3 left with: Yeah, we think we can admit this. Given this lack of evidentiary foundation, I think we should address this issue now. MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. With respect to the particulars in the exhibit, the government has marked and produced to the defense excerpts from that book that it intends to offer at trial. So the defense knows the limited number of pages from that book that the government intends to offer at trial. THE COURT: What pages? MS. MOE: Your Honor, I don't have the exhibit numbers in front of me, but they're included in the subset that we provided to the Court. I think there are about -- I don't want to guess, but somewhere between four and six particular pages, one in particular relating to victims in this case. So we are happy to confer with the defense about those particular exhibits and then raise those issues to the Court if there is still confusion on that score. With respect to the question of authentication, I think the defense's argument confuses the question of chain of custody with the question of authentication. I know the Second Circuit has rejected essentially exactly the argument that the defense is advancing here. For example, in a case of United States v. Al Farekh, 810 F.App'x 21, (2d Cir. 2020), the defense argued the government shouldn't be able to offer SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007144",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 93 of 127 93 LB1TMAX3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "left with: Yeah, we think we can admit this. Given this lack of evidentiary foundation, I think we should address this issue now. MS. MOE: Thank you, your Honor. With respect to the particulars in the exhibit, the government has marked and produced to the defense excerpts from that book that it intends to offer at trial. So the defense knows the limited number of pages from that book that the government intends to offer at trial. THE COURT: What pages? MS. MOE: Your Honor, I don't have the exhibit numbers in front of me, but they're included in the subset that we provided to the Court. I think there are about -- I don't want to guess, but somewhere between four and six particular pages, one in particular relating to victims in this case. So we are happy to confer with the defense about those particular exhibits and then raise those issues to the Court if there is still confusion on that score. With respect to the question of authentication, I think the defense's argument confuses the question of chain of custody with the question of authentication. I know the Second Circuit has rejected essentially exactly the argument that the defense is advancing here. For example, in a case of United States v. Al Farekh, 810 F.App'x 21, (2d Cir. 2020), the defense argued the government shouldn't be able to offer",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007144",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21",
      "2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "465",
      "93",
      "127",
      "810 F.App'x 21",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007144"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}