mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00018344.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "751",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 7 of 261 1147 LC6Cmax1\neven if taken months or years after the time period in question if there is reason to believe the photo is probative of how the scene appeared at the earlier time. See, for example, United States v. Causey, 748 F.3d 310, which is a Seventh Circuit decision from 2014.\nTypically, this inquiry turns on whether the photo depicts, quote, relatively enduring or fixed structures whose locations and arrangement in location to one another would not likely have changed, end quote, in the intervening time period. I'm quoting here from United States v. Smith, 2020WL5663433, which is a District of New Mexico 2020 decision.\nFor example, the Seventh Circuit in the Causey case affirmed the admission of photographs of houses taken three and six years after the conspiracy ended, stating that, despite the significant passage of time, the photos were relevant because they presented the jury with the layout, size, location, and composition of the houses. 748 F.3d at 316.\nSimilarly, a Court in this circuit admitted crime scene photos of the interior of a restaurant taken nine months later where there was no argument that the photographs at issue did not fairly and accurately depict the interior of the restaurant. Walker v. Conway, 2007WL9225072, Western District of New York, June 25, 2007.\nThe defense argues that admission of the photos is not merely a matter of relevance and prejudice under 401 and 403,\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00018344",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 751 Filed 08/10/22 Page 7 of 261 1147 LC6Cmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "even if taken months or years after the time period in question if there is reason to believe the photo is probative of how the scene appeared at the earlier time. See, for example, United States v. Causey, 748 F.3d 310, which is a Seventh Circuit decision from 2014.\nTypically, this inquiry turns on whether the photo depicts, quote, relatively enduring or fixed structures whose locations and arrangement in location to one another would not likely have changed, end quote, in the intervening time period. I'm quoting here from United States v. Smith, 2020WL5663433, which is a District of New Mexico 2020 decision.\nFor example, the Seventh Circuit in the Causey case affirmed the admission of photographs of houses taken three and six years after the conspiracy ended, stating that, despite the significant passage of time, the photos were relevant because they presented the jury with the layout, size, location, and composition of the houses. 748 F.3d at 316.\nSimilarly, a Court in this circuit admitted crime scene photos of the interior of a restaurant taken nine months later where there was no argument that the photographs at issue did not fairly and accurately depict the interior of the restaurant. Walker v. Conway, 2007WL9225072, Western District of New York, June 25, 2007.\nThe defense argues that admission of the photos is not merely a matter of relevance and prejudice under 401 and 403,",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00018344",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Seventh Circuit",
      "District of New Mexico",
      "Western District of New York",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New Mexico",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2014",
      "2020",
      "June 25, 2007",
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "751",
      "748 F.3d 310",
      "2020WL5663433",
      "2007WL9225072",
      "401",
      "403",
      "DOJ-OGR-00018344"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is printed and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document includes case references and legal citations."
}