{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "193",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 193 of 239\n\n\"[E]vidence of uncharged criminal conduct is not evidence of 'other crimes, wrongs, or acts' under Rule 404(b) if that conduct is 'inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense.'\" United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 309 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880, 886 (2d Cir. 1989)). Where \"the indictment contains a conspiracy charge, uncharged acts may be admissible as direct evidence of the conspiracy itself.\" United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 79 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641, 682 (2d Cir. 1997)); see also United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785, 812 (2d Cir. 1994). \"An act that is alleged to have been done in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy . . . is not an 'other' act within the meaning of Rule 404(b); rather, it is part of the very act charged.\" United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369, 392 (2d Cir. 1992).\n\nThe Second Circuit \"follows the 'inclusionary' approach to 'other crimes, wrongs, or acts' evidence, under which such evidence is admissible unless it is introduced for the sole purpose of showing the defendant's bad character, or unless it is overly prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 403\" United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal citation omitted); see also United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211, 221 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Zackson, 12 F.3d 1178, 1182 (2d Cir. 1993). Under this approach, uncharged acts are admissible in a conspiracy case where they are used to (i) explain the development of the illegal relationship between coconspirators; (ii) explain the mutual criminal trust that existed between coconspirators; and/or (iii) complete the story of the crime charged. See Diaz, 176 F.3d at 80; United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 566 (2d Cir. 1996); United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 334 (2d Cir. 1993). In addition, evidence of \"other acts\" is admissible under Rule 404(b) if it (i) is advanced for a proper purpose, \"such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident,\" Fed. R. Evid.\n\n166\nDOJ-OGR-00003127",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 193 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"[E]vidence of uncharged criminal conduct is not evidence of 'other crimes, wrongs, or acts' under Rule 404(b) if that conduct is 'inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense.'\" United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 309 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880, 886 (2d Cir. 1989)). Where \"the indictment contains a conspiracy charge, uncharged acts may be admissible as direct evidence of the conspiracy itself.\" United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 79 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641, 682 (2d Cir. 1997)); see also United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785, 812 (2d Cir. 1994). \"An act that is alleged to have been done in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy . . . is not an 'other' act within the meaning of Rule 404(b); rather, it is part of the very act charged.\" United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369, 392 (2d Cir. 1992).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Second Circuit \"follows the 'inclusionary' approach to 'other crimes, wrongs, or acts' evidence, under which such evidence is admissible unless it is introduced for the sole purpose of showing the defendant's bad character, or unless it is overly prejudicial under Fed. R. Evid. 403\" United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61, 69 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal citation omitted); see also United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211, 221 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Zackson, 12 F.3d 1178, 1182 (2d Cir. 1993). Under this approach, uncharged acts are admissible in a conspiracy case where they are used to (i) explain the development of the illegal relationship between coconspirators; (ii) explain the mutual criminal trust that existed between coconspirators; and/or (iii) complete the story of the crime charged. See Diaz, 176 F.3d at 80; United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 566 (2d Cir. 1996); United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 334 (2d Cir. 1993). In addition, evidence of \"other acts\" is admissible under Rule 404(b) if it (i) is advanced for a proper purpose, \"such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident,\" Fed. R. Evid.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "166",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003127",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "2007",
      "1989",
      "1999",
      "1997",
      "1994",
      "1992",
      "1996",
      "2006",
      "1993",
      "1993",
      "1996",
      "1993"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "511 F.3d 289",
      "870 F.2d 880",
      "176 F.3d 52",
      "116 F.3d 641",
      "29 F.3d 785",
      "983 F.2d 369",
      "84 F.3d 61",
      "445 F.3d 211",
      "12 F.3d 1178",
      "83 F.3d 556",
      "11 F.3d 315",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003127"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a conspiracy case, discussing the admissibility of evidence under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is likely a page from a larger legal brief or memorandum."
}