{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "523",
    "date": "12/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 523 Filed 12/04/21 Page 2 of 9\n\n. . . .). The “standard of relevance established by the Federal Rules of Evidence is not high.” United States v. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366, 1375 (2d Cir. 1985) (Friendly, J.) (internal quotation marks omitted). A district court’s “evidentiary rulings” are reviewed on appeal “under a deferential abuse of discretion standard,” and are disturbed only if “manifestly erroneous.” United States v. Skelos, 988 F.3d 645, 662 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).\n\n“[A] suggestion that an item of evidence relates to a period that is too remote goes to both the item’s relevance and its weight.” United States v. Certified Env. Services, Inc., 753 F.3d 72, 90 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted.). But evidence of continuity between the time of the consequential fact and the time of the proffered evidence supports a finding of relevance. See, e.g., id. (evidence that predated the charged conspiracy by five years relevant because it concerned “a pattern of activity that continued up to the time of the charged conduct,” and evidence that postdated acts charged in the indictment provided evidence “of a longstanding continuous mental process” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Roux, 715 F.3d 1019, 1027 (7th Cir. 2013) (rejecting a relevance challenge to prior acts evidence because they “were offered to establish Roux’s sexual interest in minors, a proclivity that . . . is unlikely to vanish with the passage of time”). And evidence that corroborates earlier evidence is “admissible for the same reasons.” Certified Env. Servs., 753 F.3d at 91 (“[B]ecause the 2009 guidance document memorialized the 2006 email exchange, it served to corroborate that evidence, and therefore was admissible for the same reasons.”).\n\nII. Discussion\n\nCertain photographs in the 900 series are strongly corroborative of specific statements made by Jane. In defense counsel’s words, Jane’s recollection “of everything . . . is critical to the\n\n2\n\nDOJ-OGR-00008215",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 523 Filed 12/04/21 Page 2 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": ". . . .). The “standard of relevance established by the Federal Rules of Evidence is not high.” United States v. Southland Corp., 760 F.2d 1366, 1375 (2d Cir. 1985) (Friendly, J.) (internal quotation marks omitted). A district court’s “evidentiary rulings” are reviewed on appeal “under a deferential abuse of discretion standard,” and are disturbed only if “manifestly erroneous.” United States v. Skelos, 988 F.3d 645, 662 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).\n\n“[A] suggestion that an item of evidence relates to a period that is too remote goes to both the item’s relevance and its weight.” United States v. Certified Env. Services, Inc., 753 F.3d 72, 90 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted.). But evidence of continuity between the time of the consequential fact and the time of the proffered evidence supports a finding of relevance. See, e.g., id. (evidence that predated the charged conspiracy by five years relevant because it concerned “a pattern of activity that continued up to the time of the charged conduct,” and evidence that postdated acts charged in the indictment provided evidence “of a longstanding continuous mental process” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Roux, 715 F.3d 1019, 1027 (7th Cir. 2013) (rejecting a relevance challenge to prior acts evidence because they “were offered to establish Roux’s sexual interest in minors, a proclivity that . . . is unlikely to vanish with the passage of time”). And evidence that corroborates earlier evidence is “admissible for the same reasons.” Certified Env. Servs., 753 F.3d at 91 (“[B]ecause the 2009 guidance document memorialized the 2006 email exchange, it served to corroborate that evidence, and therefore was admissible for the same reasons.”).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. Discussion",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Certain photographs in the 900 series are strongly corroborative of specific statements made by Jane. In defense counsel’s words, Jane’s recollection “of everything . . . is critical to the",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008215",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Friendly, J.",
      "Roux"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "12/04/21",
      "2006",
      "2009"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 523",
      "760 F.2d 1366",
      "988 F.3d 645",
      "753 F.3d 72",
      "715 F.3d 1019",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008215"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}