mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006957.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "456",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 456 Filed 11/12/21 Page 5 of 10\nPage 5\nmade also be a member.\" In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F.3d 93, 139 (2d Cir. 2008).\nWith respect to the second prong of this rule, a statement is in furtherance of a conspiracy if it was in some way designed to promote or facilitate achievement of a goal of the conspiracy. Under this standard, a co-conspirator statement is admissible if it \"reasonably [can] be interpreted as encouraging a co-conspirator or other person to advance the conspiracy, or as enhancing a co-conspirator or other person's usefulness to the conspiracy.\" United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1412 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Thus, statements are in furtherance of the conspiracy if they: (1) inform or provide an update as to the status or progress of the conspiracy, see United States v. Desena, 260 F.3d 150, 158 (2d Cir. 2001); (2) \"prompt the listener . . . to respond in a way that promotes or facilitates the carrying out of a criminal activity,\" Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d at 958; (3) \"seek to induce a co-conspirator's assistance,\" Desena, 260 F.3d at 158; (4) \"provide reassurance,\" id.; (5) \"serve to foster trust and cohesiveness,\" id.; United States v. Simmons, 923 F.2d 934, 945 (2d Cir. 1991); (6) \"facilitate and protect\" the conspiratorial activities, United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 87 (2d Cir. 1999); or (7) inform a co-conspirator of \"the identity and activities of his coconspirators,\" United States v. Rastelli, 870 F.2d 822, 837 (2d Cir. 1989); United States v. Rahme, 813 F.2d 31, 36 (2d Cir. 1987).\nB. Discussion\nBoth proffered statements are admissible as non-hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The first exemplar qualifies as a co-conspirator statement under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), and the second exemplar is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Accordingly, both are admissible at trial.\nDOJ-OGR-00006957",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 456 Filed 11/12/21 Page 5 of 10",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "made also be a member.\" In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F.3d 93, 139 (2d Cir. 2008).\nWith respect to the second prong of this rule, a statement is in furtherance of a conspiracy if it was in some way designed to promote or facilitate achievement of a goal of the conspiracy. Under this standard, a co-conspirator statement is admissible if it \"reasonably [can] be interpreted as encouraging a co-conspirator or other person to advance the conspiracy, or as enhancing a co-conspirator or other person's usefulness to the conspiracy.\" United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1412 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Thus, statements are in furtherance of the conspiracy if they: (1) inform or provide an update as to the status or progress of the conspiracy, see United States v. Desena, 260 F.3d 150, 158 (2d Cir. 2001); (2) \"prompt the listener . . . to respond in a way that promotes or facilitates the carrying out of a criminal activity,\" Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d at 958; (3) \"seek to induce a co-conspirator's assistance,\" Desena, 260 F.3d at 158; (4) \"provide reassurance,\" id.; (5) \"serve to foster trust and cohesiveness,\" id.; United States v. Simmons, 923 F.2d 934, 945 (2d Cir. 1991); (6) \"facilitate and protect\" the conspiratorial activities, United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 87 (2d Cir. 1999); or (7) inform a co-conspirator of \"the identity and activities of his coconspirators,\" United States v. Rastelli, 870 F.2d 822, 837 (2d Cir. 1989); United States v. Rahme, 813 F.2d 31, 36 (2d Cir. 1987).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Discussion",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Both proffered statements are admissible as non-hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The first exemplar qualifies as a co-conspirator statement under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), and the second exemplar is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Accordingly, both are admissible at trial.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006957",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Embassies",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "East Africa",
      "D.C."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21",
      "2008",
      "1988",
      "2001",
      "1991",
      "1999",
      "1989",
      "1987"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "456",
      "552 F.3d 93",
      "846 F.2d 1384",
      "260 F.3d 150",
      "922 F.2d",
      "923 F.2d 934",
      "176 F.3d 52",
      "870 F.2d 822",
      "813 F.2d 31",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006957"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}