{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "184",
    "document_number": "747",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 747 Filed 08/10/22 Page 184 of 228 860 LC2VMAX6 Alessi - Direct\n\n1 THE COURT: So I want to ask, there was an objection to a question on foundation. The question was, is this -- do you know if this is the same book or a later book. I wanted to hear the answer to that. But looking at it, I don't know what his basis for knowledge is for saying that it's the later book. So you can inquire into that or I'll -- yes?\n2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, I guess if he left in 2002 and the book is after 2002, I don't think there can be a basis for knowledge.\n3 THE COURT: Well, I'll allow the question to be asked. And if there's not, then I will agree with you and I'll strike the testimony.\n4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay.\n5 MS. COMEY: Understood, your Honor.\n6 THE COURT: So that's one. And then two, I just want to make sure I understand, because the letter indicated this witness, sort of a new person to authenticate, as opposed to the original witness who you indicated would authenticate; correct?\n7 MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor. That other witness we believe could also authenticate it, but --\n8 THE COURT: Right. So it seems to me when you're finished here and after the voir dire, I can sustain the objection, overrule the objection, or reserve until I hear additional. Any reason not to do it that way?\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00012469",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 747 Filed 08/10/22 Page 184 of 228 860 LC2VMAX6 Alessi - Direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 THE COURT: So I want to ask, there was an objection to a question on foundation. The question was, is this -- do you know if this is the same book or a later book. I wanted to hear the answer to that. But looking at it, I don't know what his basis for knowledge is for saying that it's the later book. So you can inquire into that or I'll -- yes?\n2 MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, I guess if he left in 2002 and the book is after 2002, I don't think there can be a basis for knowledge.\n3 THE COURT: Well, I'll allow the question to be asked. And if there's not, then I will agree with you and I'll strike the testimony.\n4 MR. PAGLIUCA: Okay.\n5 MS. COMEY: Understood, your Honor.\n6 THE COURT: So that's one. And then two, I just want to make sure I understand, because the letter indicated this witness, sort of a new person to authenticate, as opposed to the original witness who you indicated would authenticate; correct?\n7 MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor. That other witness we believe could also authenticate it, but --\n8 THE COURT: Right. So it seems to me when you're finished here and after the voir dire, I can sustain the objection, overrule the objection, or reserve until I hear additional. Any reason not to do it that way?",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00012469",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "THE COURT",
      "MR. PAGLIUCA",
      "MS. COMEY"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "2002"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "747",
      "184",
      "228",
      "860",
      "LC2VMAX6",
      "DOJ-OGR-00012469",
      "(212) 805-0300"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}