{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "535",
    "date": "12/09/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 535 Filed 12/09/21 Page 2 of 8\nparticularly high.\" United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139, 172 (2d Cir. 2008). It does not require ruling out \"all possibilities inconsistent with authenticity,\" or \"prov[ing] beyond any doubt that the evidence is what it purports to be.\" United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 658 (2d Cir. 2001). Rather, all that is required is \"sufficient proof . . . so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification.\" Id. This \"minimal\" standard can be satisfied by the \"testimony of a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be.\" United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140, 151 (2d Cir. 2007). Once this \"minimal\" standard is met, \"the other party then remains free to challenge the reliability of the evidence, to minimize its importance, or to argue alternative interpretations of its meaning, but these and similar other challenges go to the weight of the evidence—not to its admissibility.\" United States v. Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31, 38 (2d Cir. 2004).\nFederal Rule of Evidence 801 defines \"hearsay\" as \"a statement that a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.\" Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(2).\nII. ANALYSIS\nThe Court first addresses authentication under Rule 901 and concludes that Mr. Alessi's testimony is sufficient to meet this Rule's standard. Mr. Alessi testified that he worked in the Palm Beach residence from 1990 to December 2002. Trial Tr. at 778. His job required him to spend a significant amount of time in the residence. Id. at 779-80. Based on his years working at the residence, he recalled that Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell maintained telephone directories and that GX 52 was a version of those directories.\nHe first testified about the function of the telephone directories in the Palm Beach residence, and that he recalled first seeing the directories in 1995 or 1996. Id. at 849. He testified where in the home the directories were kept—\"in the kitchen desk,\" \"Ms. Maxwell's\n2\nDOJ-OGR-00008304",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 535 Filed 12/09/21 Page 2 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "particularly high.\" United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139, 172 (2d Cir. 2008). It does not require ruling out \"all possibilities inconsistent with authenticity,\" or \"prov[ing] beyond any doubt that the evidence is what it purports to be.\" United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 658 (2d Cir. 2001). Rather, all that is required is \"sufficient proof . . . so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification.\" Id. This \"minimal\" standard can be satisfied by the \"testimony of a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be.\" United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140, 151 (2d Cir. 2007). Once this \"minimal\" standard is met, \"the other party then remains free to challenge the reliability of the evidence, to minimize its importance, or to argue alternative interpretations of its meaning, but these and similar other challenges go to the weight of the evidence—not to its admissibility.\" United States v. Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31, 38 (2d Cir. 2004).\nFederal Rule of Evidence 801 defines \"hearsay\" as \"a statement that a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.\" Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(2).\nII. ANALYSIS\nThe Court first addresses authentication under Rule 901 and concludes that Mr. Alessi's testimony is sufficient to meet this Rule's standard. Mr. Alessi testified that he worked in the Palm Beach residence from 1990 to December 2002. Trial Tr. at 778. His job required him to spend a significant amount of time in the residence. Id. at 779-80. Based on his years working at the residence, he recalled that Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell maintained telephone directories and that GX 52 was a version of those directories.\nHe first testified about the function of the telephone directories in the Palm Beach residence, and that he recalled first seeing the directories in 1995 or 1996. Id. at 849. He testified where in the home the directories were kept—\"in the kitchen desk,\" \"Ms. Maxwell's",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008304",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Al-Moayad",
      "Dhinsa",
      "Gagliardi",
      "Tin Yat Chin",
      "Mr. Alessi",
      "Mr. Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Palm Beach"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "1990",
      "December 2002",
      "1995",
      "1996",
      "12/09/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 535",
      "GX 52",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008304"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The content discusses legal standards for evidence authentication and hearsay."
}