{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "491",
    "date": "11/22/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 491 Filed 11/22/21 Page 5 of 6\n\n(“During the meeting, the defendant produced a small bound book and several sheets of legal pad paper containing hand-written notes.”). Again, the book is sewn and bound, like the other copies seen by Employee-1, and is not amenable to easy insertion of pages. These “alterations” do not undermine the authenticity of the book in the slightest, but at most, they go to weight and not admissibility. See Tan Yat Chin, 371 F.3d at 38; cf. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140, 151 (“Based on the[] testimony [that electronic communications were accurate], a reasonable juror could have found that the exhibits did represent those conversations, notwithstanding that the e-mails and online chats were editable.”).\n\nThe defense is correct that Employee-1 cannot say that she saw the specific address book that is Government Exhibit 52 while she worked for Epstein. But she can recognize Government Exhibit 52 as one of the many copies of the defendant’s address book that she did see, and she can testify to the practice that, close in time to when Government Exhibit 52 left Epstein’s house, the address book was regularly kept in specific places around Epstein’s house. That testimony is enough to satisfy the low bar for authentication, and it is supported by Government Exhibit 606 and by testimony that corroborates private information inside the address book.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00007416",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 491 Filed 11/22/21 Page 5 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "“During the meeting, the defendant produced a small bound book and several sheets of legal pad paper containing hand-written notes.”). Again, the book is sewn and bound, like the other copies seen by Employee-1, and is not amenable to easy insertion of pages. These “alterations” do not undermine the authenticity of the book in the slightest, but at most, they go to weight and not admissibility. See Tan Yat Chin, 371 F.3d at 38; cf. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140, 151 (“Based on the[] testimony [that electronic communications were accurate], a reasonable juror could have found that the exhibits did represent those conversations, notwithstanding that the e-mails and online chats were editable.”).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defense is correct that Employee-1 cannot say that she saw the specific address book that is Government Exhibit 52 while she worked for Epstein. But she can recognize Government Exhibit 52 as one of the many copies of the defendant’s address book that she did see, and she can testify to the practice that, close in time to when Government Exhibit 52 left Epstein’s house, the address book was regularly kept in specific places around Epstein’s house. That testimony is enough to satisfy the low bar for authentication, and it is supported by Government Exhibit 606 and by testimony that corroborates private information inside the address book.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007416",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Employee-1",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/22/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 491",
      "Government Exhibit 52",
      "Government Exhibit 606",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007416"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case against an individual associated with Epstein. The text discusses the authenticity and admissibility of certain evidence, including an address book."
}