{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "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 7 of 8\n330-31 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Similarly, in United States v. Lieberman, 637 F.2d 95 (2d Cir. 1980), the Second Circuit affirmed admission of a hotel guest card for the non-hearsay purpose that a person claiming to have the name of a coconspirator registered at the hotel. The Government then admitted \"other evidence . . . from which the jury could infer that the hotel card spoke the truth.\" Id. at 101. Last, in Tin Yat Chin, the Second Circuit concluded that credit card receipts were admissible because they \"tended to show that a person referring to himself as [the defendant] signed receipts on the dates and times in question.\" 371 F.3d at 39. Other courts have taken a similar approach to the Second Circuit. See e.g., United States v. Chavez, 229 F.3d 946, 953-54 (10th Cir. 2000) (scrap of paper containing a phone number admissible \"for the non-hearsay purpose of linking the co-conspirators,\" but \"the number could not have been submitted for the truth of the matter asserted\"); United States v. Munguia, 273 F. App'x 517, 521 (6th Cir. 2008) (affirming admission of \"cell-phone contact lists . . . for the non-hearsay purpose of linking [the defendant] to his co-conspirators\"); United States v. Gaitan-Acevedo, 148 F.3d 577, 591 (6th Cir. 1998) (\"The government offered the numbers and addresses to demonstrate, in conjunction with other evidence, that members of the conspiracy associated with each other for business purposes. . . . These documents are not offered to prove the information they contained and therefore, may not be excluded as hearsay.\")\nHere, the jury could conclude based on the testimony of Mr. Alessi and GX 606 that Ms. Maxwell regularly used this telephone directory, versions of which were maintained over the years at the Palm Beach residence. See Trial Tr. at 849; GX 606 at 7, 10. The directory is thus relevant for the non-hearsay purpose that it tends to show a link between Ms. Maxwell and the names and phone numbers listed, as well as how the information was organized. It is not offered to establish that any of the information contained within the book, such as the listed phone\n7\nDOJ-OGR-00008309",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 535 Filed 12/09/21 Page 7 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "330-31 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Similarly, in United States v. Lieberman, 637 F.2d 95 (2d Cir. 1980), the Second Circuit affirmed admission of a hotel guest card for the non-hearsay purpose that a person claiming to have the name of a coconspirator registered at the hotel. The Government then admitted \"other evidence . . . from which the jury could infer that the hotel card spoke the truth.\" Id. at 101. Last, in Tin Yat Chin, the Second Circuit concluded that credit card receipts were admissible because they \"tended to show that a person referring to himself as [the defendant] signed receipts on the dates and times in question.\" 371 F.3d at 39. Other courts have taken a similar approach to the Second Circuit. See e.g., United States v. Chavez, 229 F.3d 946, 953-54 (10th Cir. 2000) (scrap of paper containing a phone number admissible \"for the non-hearsay purpose of linking the co-conspirators,\" but \"the number could not have been submitted for the truth of the matter asserted\"); United States v. Munguia, 273 F. App'x 517, 521 (6th Cir. 2008) (affirming admission of \"cell-phone contact lists . . . for the non-hearsay purpose of linking [the defendant] to his co-conspirators\"); United States v. Gaitan-Acevedo, 148 F.3d 577, 591 (6th Cir. 1998) (\"The government offered the numbers and addresses to demonstrate, in conjunction with other evidence, that members of the conspiracy associated with each other for business purposes. . . . These documents are not offered to prove the information they contained and therefore, may not be excluded as hearsay.\")",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here, the jury could conclude based on the testimony of Mr. Alessi and GX 606 that Ms. Maxwell regularly used this telephone directory, versions of which were maintained over the years at the Palm Beach residence. See Trial Tr. at 849; GX 606 at 7, 10. The directory is thus relevant for the non-hearsay purpose that it tends to show a link between Ms. Maxwell and the names and phone numbers listed, as well as how the information was organized. It is not offered to establish that any of the information contained within the book, such as the listed phone",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008309",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Lieberman",
      "Tin Yat Chin",
      "Chavez",
      "Munguia",
      "Gaitan-Acevedo",
      "Alessi",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "Government",
      "Tenth Circuit",
      "Sixth Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "Palm Beach"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2005",
      "1980",
      "2000",
      "2008",
      "1998",
      "12/09/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "535",
      "637 F.2d 95",
      "371 F.3d 39",
      "229 F.3d 946",
      "273 F. App'x 517",
      "148 F.3d 577",
      "GX 606",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008309"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}