{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "41",
    "document_number": "397",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 41 of 84\n\nGovernment's notice is remediated by this brief. This is ample notice of the possible Rule 404(b) evidence in this case. Indeed, the Rule only requires that the defense receive notice \"before trial,\" or even \"during trial . . . for good cause.\" Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3)(C).\n\nThe defense claims, without supporting authority, that Rule 404(b) requires heightened notice that cannot be satisfied here without, essentially, a script of all of the proposed testimony at trial accompanied by detailed expositions of the Government's case-in-chief. (Def. Mot. 2 at 4-5). But the Government has provided the defense with marked exhibits and comprehensive Jencks Act materials of the single witness subject to this motion (approximately 400 pages) \"unusually early\" (Endorsed Letter at 3, Dkt. No. 353), along with a letter specifically highlighting the proffered evidence at trial. That is all that is required, and the defendant cannot leverage the notice requirements of Rule 404(b) to preclude this evidence at trial. Indeed, the \"Second Circuit generally disfavors the exclusion of otherwise relevant evidence on technical grounds.\" Hart v. BHH, LLC, No. 15 Civ. 4804 (WHP), 2019 WL 1494027, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2019) (citing Rodriguez v. Vill. Green Realty, Inc., 788 F.3d 31, 47 (2d Cir. 2015)). Accordingly, the only judge in this District to consider a similar situation concluded that the Government's Rule 404(b) notice was sufficient in combination with the Government's motion papers. See United States v. Chandler, No. 19 Cr. 867 (PKC), 2021 WL 1851996, at *2 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2021).\n\nThe defense vaguely asserts that it cannot perform an independent investigation into the Rule 404(b) evidence due to the inadequacy of the Government's notice. (Def. Mot. 2 at 5-6). That conclusory assertion cannot support a motion to preclude the jury from hearing evidence of the defendant's guilt. The defense has not identified any specific way that they have been hampered\n\n40\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005824",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 41 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Government's notice is remediated by this brief. This is ample notice of the possible Rule 404(b) evidence in this case. Indeed, the Rule only requires that the defense receive notice \"before trial,\" or even \"during trial . . . for good cause.\" Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(3)(C).\n\nThe defense claims, without supporting authority, that Rule 404(b) requires heightened notice that cannot be satisfied here without, essentially, a script of all of the proposed testimony at trial accompanied by detailed expositions of the Government's case-in-chief. (Def. Mot. 2 at 4-5). But the Government has provided the defense with marked exhibits and comprehensive Jencks Act materials of the single witness subject to this motion (approximately 400 pages) \"unusually early\" (Endorsed Letter at 3, Dkt. No. 353), along with a letter specifically highlighting the proffered evidence at trial. That is all that is required, and the defendant cannot leverage the notice requirements of Rule 404(b) to preclude this evidence at trial. Indeed, the \"Second Circuit generally disfavors the exclusion of otherwise relevant evidence on technical grounds.\" Hart v. BHH, LLC, No. 15 Civ. 4804 (WHP), 2019 WL 1494027, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2019) (citing Rodriguez v. Vill. Green Realty, Inc., 788 F.3d 31, 47 (2d Cir. 2015)). Accordingly, the only judge in this District to consider a similar situation concluded that the Government's Rule 404(b) notice was sufficient in combination with the Government's motion papers. See United States v. Chandler, No. 19 Cr. 867 (PKC), 2021 WL 1851996, at *2 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2021).\n\nThe defense vaguely asserts that it cannot perform an independent investigation into the Rule 404(b) evidence due to the inadequacy of the Government's notice. (Def. Mot. 2 at 5-6). That conclusory assertion cannot support a motion to preclude the jury from hearing evidence of the defendant's guilt. The defense has not identified any specific way that they have been hampered",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "40",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005824",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "Apr. 4, 2019",
      "May 10, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "397",
      "404(b)",
      "15 Civ. 4804 (WHP)",
      "19 Cr. 867 (PKC)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005824"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the adequacy of the government's notice under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The text is well-formatted and clear, with proper citations to legal authorities."
}