mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007108.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "57",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 57 of 127 57 LB15MAX2 the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offenses, they're not inextricably intertwined with the evidence nor necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial. The government doesn't allege that the individuals in these e-mails have anything to do with the crimes charged nor could they on the assumption that they can't establish that any of the individuals are below the age of consent. As for 404(b), I am also not convinced. The government argues that the e-mails show motive, intent, plan, and knowledge. Any potential probative value here would be substantially outweighed by the possibility of confusing the jury. Thus, I grant the defendant's motion as to Government's Exhibits 401 through 404, 409, 410, and 413. The next category is the anticipated testimony that -- and this involves someone who has knowledge based -- this goes to the post-date conspiracy charged. This is someone who, as I understand it, has knowledge that post dates the conspiracy alleged; is that right? MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor; and that testimony will be proffered principally authenticate certain evidence relevant to the charged conduct. THE COURT: OK. Who is taking this? With respect to authenticating evidence, do you have an objection, Ms. Menninger? MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor, because it is SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007108",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 57 of 127 57",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LB15MAX2 the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offenses, they're not inextricably intertwined with the evidence nor necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial. The government doesn't allege that the individuals in these e-mails have anything to do with the crimes charged nor could they on the assumption that they can't establish that any of the individuals are below the age of consent. As for 404(b), I am also not convinced. The government argues that the e-mails show motive, intent, plan, and knowledge. Any potential probative value here would be substantially outweighed by the possibility of confusing the jury. Thus, I grant the defendant's motion as to Government's Exhibits 401 through 404, 409, 410, and 413. The next category is the anticipated testimony that -- and this involves someone who has knowledge based -- this goes to the post-date conspiracy charged. This is someone who, as I understand it, has knowledge that post dates the conspiracy alleged; is that right? MS. MOE: That's correct, your Honor; and that testimony will be proffered principally authenticate certain evidence relevant to the charged conduct. THE COURT: OK. Who is taking this? With respect to authenticating evidence, do you have an objection, Ms. Menninger? MS. MENNINGER: Yes, your Honor, because it is",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007108",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MOE",
      "MS. MENNINGER"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007108"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}