{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "19",
    "document_number": "739",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 739 Filed 08/10/22 Page 19 of 43 19 LBNAMAXTps\n\n1 for the truth, that it is being, as I understand it, being\n2 offered for the effect on the listener, and so really there\n3 is -- it's a potential relevance issue and not a hearsay issue.\n4 I think this needs to play out at trial, but tell me if anybody\n5 disagrees with that.\n6 MS. COMEY: We agree, your Honor.\n7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Agreed.\n8 THE COURT: And then the other one, the government is\n9 seeking admission pursuant to 801(d)(2)(E), and in question is\n10 whether the statement was made during the course of and in\n11 furtherance of that conspiracy.\n12 I don't think I have enough to answer that before me.\n13 So I can either hear more now or let it play out at trial.\n14 MS. COMEY: I think it should play out at trial, your\n15 Honor.\n16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. I agree, your Honor.\n17 THE COURT: Great. Thank you. All right. That takes\n18 care of that.\n19 Next are the four additional individuals that the\n20 defense disclosed as potential experts. So we've got Kelso and\n21 Lopez, who, it strikes me, are primarily potentially fact\n22 witnesses and not expert witnesses, with the exception of that\n23 Kelso tes -- so I think first, let's see if we get agreement\n24 on: Lopez would be fact testimony, correct?\n25 MR. ROHRBACH: That's the government's understanding,\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011640",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 739 Filed 08/10/22 Page 19 of 43 19 LBNAMAXTps",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 for the truth, that it is being, as I understand it, being\n2 offered for the effect on the listener, and so really there\n3 is -- it's a potential relevance issue and not a hearsay issue.\n4 I think this needs to play out at trial, but tell me if anybody\n5 disagrees with that.\n6 MS. COMEY: We agree, your Honor.\n7 MR. PAGLIUCA: Agreed.\n8 THE COURT: And then the other one, the government is\n9 seeking admission pursuant to 801(d)(2)(E), and in question is\n10 whether the statement was made during the course of and in\n11 furtherance of that conspiracy.\n12 I don't think I have enough to answer that before me.\n13 So I can either hear more now or let it play out at trial.\n14 MS. COMEY: I think it should play out at trial, your\n15 Honor.\n16 MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes. I agree, your Honor.\n17 THE COURT: Great. Thank you. All right. That takes\n18 care of that.\n19 Next are the four additional individuals that the\n20 defense disclosed as potential experts. So we've got Kelso and\n21 Lopez, who, it strikes me, are primarily potentially fact\n22 witnesses and not expert witnesses, with the exception of that\n23 Kelso tes -- so I think first, let's see if we get agreement\n24 on: Lopez would be fact testimony, correct?\n25 MR. ROHRBACH: That's the government's understanding,",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011640",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. COMEY",
      "MR. PAGLIUCA",
      "MR. ROHRBACH",
      "Kelso",
      "Lopez"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "739",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011640"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}