{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "26",
    "document_number": "755",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 26 of 262 1731 LC8VMAX2\n1 fired if they don't.\n2 MR. ROHRBACH: I think that would be the source of the\n3 obligation is that they would be a fireable offense against the\n4 company to be fraudulently obtaining insurance benefits for\n5 someone. But if the Court is not persuaded --\n6 THE COURT: I don't always find a case on point.\n7 You're right, there's a basis to distinguish, but it's pretty\n8 directly on point; so I think it shows it would be hearsay in\n9 the absence of some verification or some nontruth basis for\n10 which you're offering.\n11 MR. ROHRBACH: Then I think the government will just\n12 offer the other exhibit, your Honor.\n13 THE COURT: Okay. 823.\n14 MR. ROHRBACH: 823.\n15 THE COURT: To the extent there was a relevance\n16 objection, I'll overrule the relevance objection.\n17 MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, may I state it for the\n18 record even though I know you're ruling?\n19 THE COURT: I'm sorry?\n20 MS. STERNHEIM: I would like to state it for the -- in\n21 front of the jury.\n22 THE COURT: Oh, yes, you can object and I'll overrule.\n23 MS. STERNHEIM: Okay.\n24 THE COURT: That's fine.\n25 MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, the case I mentioned\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00013304",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 26 of 262 1731 LC8VMAX2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 fired if they don't.\n2 MR. ROHRBACH: I think that would be the source of the\n3 obligation is that they would be a fireable offense against the\n4 company to be fraudulently obtaining insurance benefits for\n5 someone. But if the Court is not persuaded --\n6 THE COURT: I don't always find a case on point.\n7 You're right, there's a basis to distinguish, but it's pretty\n8 directly on point; so I think it shows it would be hearsay in\n9 the absence of some verification or some nontruth basis for\n10 which you're offering.\n11 MR. ROHRBACH: Then I think the government will just\n12 offer the other exhibit, your Honor.\n13 THE COURT: Okay. 823.\n14 MR. ROHRBACH: 823.\n15 THE COURT: To the extent there was a relevance\n16 objection, I'll overrule the relevance objection.\n17 MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, may I state it for the\n18 record even though I know you're ruling?\n19 THE COURT: I'm sorry?\n20 MS. STERNHEIM: I would like to state it for the -- in\n21 front of the jury.\n22 THE COURT: Oh, yes, you can object and I'll overrule.\n23 MS. STERNHEIM: Okay.\n24 THE COURT: That's fine.\n25 MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, the case I mentioned",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013304",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. ROHRBACH",
      "MS. STERNHEIM"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "755",
      "DOJ-OGR-00013304"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}