{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "442",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 442 Filed 11/12/21 Page 5 of 12\n\nAfter December 2020, according to the Advisory Committee, the new subsection (B) requires that:\n\nThe prosecution must not only identify the evidence that it intends to offer pursuant to the rule but also articulate a non-propensity purpose for which the evidence is offered and the basis for concluding that the evidence is relevant in light of this purpose.\n\nId. (emphasis added). The Rule's requirement that the prosecution must \"identify the evidence,\" \"articulate a non-propensity purpose\" and a \"basis for concluding the evidence is relevant in light of this purpose\" replaced the previous notice requirement only of the \"general nature\" of anticipated evidence. The \"advance notice\" is \"important so that the parties and the court have adequate opportunity to assess the evidence, the purpose for which it is offered, and whether the requirements of Rule 403 have been satisfied . . .\" Id.\n\nThe new rule also required that the pre-trial notice be done in writing, \"sufficiently ahead of trial to give the defendant a fair opportunity to meet the evidence.\" Rule 404(b)(3)(A). \"The 'air opportunity' must include sufficient time for an independent investigation that might surface evidence that refutes, mitigates, or places the other act in a different light. Prosecutors who cut the disclosure too close to the trial date risk a judge either excluding the evidence so that the trial can proceed as scheduled or delaying the trial so the defense can \"meet\" the other act proof. Easy to overlook is that the judge too needs time to consider the admissibility of the other act evidence.\" See Wright & Miller, 22B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid., § 5242.1 2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b) (2021).\n\nII. Rule 404(b) Notice in This Case\n\nThe Government advised this Court that it could provide notice of any Rule 404(b) evidence by 45 days prior to trial, which would afford it \"adequate time to finalize its determination of what evidence it will seek to introduce at trial pursuant to\" the Rule. See Dkt.\n\n2\n\nDOJ-OGR-00006576",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 442 Filed 11/12/21 Page 5 of 12",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "After December 2020, according to the Advisory Committee, the new subsection (B) requires that:\n\nThe prosecution must not only identify the evidence that it intends to offer pursuant to the rule but also articulate a non-propensity purpose for which the evidence is offered and the basis for concluding that the evidence is relevant in light of this purpose.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. (emphasis added). The Rule's requirement that the prosecution must \"identify the evidence,\" \"articulate a non-propensity purpose\" and a \"basis for concluding the evidence is relevant in light of this purpose\" replaced the previous notice requirement only of the \"general nature\" of anticipated evidence. The \"advance notice\" is \"important so that the parties and the court have adequate opportunity to assess the evidence, the purpose for which it is offered, and whether the requirements of Rule 403 have been satisfied . . .\" Id.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The new rule also required that the pre-trial notice be done in writing, \"sufficiently ahead of trial to give the defendant a fair opportunity to meet the evidence.\" Rule 404(b)(3)(A). \"The 'air opportunity' must include sufficient time for an independent investigation that might surface evidence that refutes, mitigates, or places the other act in a different light. Prosecutors who cut the disclosure too close to the trial date risk a judge either excluding the evidence so that the trial can proceed as scheduled or delaying the trial so the defense can \"meet\" the other act proof. Easy to overlook is that the judge too needs time to consider the admissibility of the other act evidence.\" See Wright & Miller, 22B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid., § 5242.1 2020 Amendments to Rule 404(b) (2021).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. Rule 404(b) Notice in This Case",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government advised this Court that it could provide notice of any Rule 404(b) evidence by 45 days prior to trial, which would afford it \"adequate time to finalize its determination of what evidence it will seek to introduce at trial pursuant to\" the Rule. See Dkt.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006576",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Advisory Committee",
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "December 2020",
      "11/12/21",
      "2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 442",
      "Rule 404(b)",
      "Rule 403",
      "Dkt."
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the requirements of Rule 404(b) and the notice provided by the Government. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 5 of 12."
}