mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00018939.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "77",
    "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 77 of 262 1782 LC8Cmax3 Hesse - direct\n1 to the business records exception. They're free to argue about\n2 the timeframes and what could be construed from them, but the\n3 question is whether this is a business record, and based on the\n4 testimony from now two witnesses and the organization of the\n5 book itself, which shows that this is a sequentially numbered\n6 book that's bound, that was used as part of this employee's job\n7 functions. That's all that the business records exception\n8 requires.\n9 Again, on the timing, the issue is whether these\n10 records were made at or near. I'm not aware of any authority\n11 that requires a foundation that a witness testify that they\n12 personally made that record at the exact moment a phone call\n13 came in. That's not what the business records exception\n14 requires. It's whether it's at or near, whether it's part of\n15 the general practice. If the requirement were that witnesses\n16 come in and talk about the exact moment they recorded something\n17 every time, business records would never be admitted in court.\n18 That's not what the rule requires.\n19 THE COURT: I'm going to poke around at the law. If\n20 anybody has a case, you may have noticed, I like cases.\n21 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.\n22 THE COURT: I'll take a look during the remainder of\n23 the break.\n24 Can I keep these to look at them?\n25 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, of course.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00018939",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 77 of 262 1782 LC8Cmax3 Hesse - direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 to the business records exception. They're free to argue about\n2 the timeframes and what could be construed from them, but the\n3 question is whether this is a business record, and based on the\n4 testimony from now two witnesses and the organization of the\n5 book itself, which shows that this is a sequentially numbered\n6 book that's bound, that was used as part of this employee's job\n7 functions. That's all that the business records exception\n8 requires.\n9 Again, on the timing, the issue is whether these\n10 records were made at or near. I'm not aware of any authority\n11 that requires a foundation that a witness testify that they\n12 personally made that record at the exact moment a phone call\n13 came in. That's not what the business records exception\n14 requires. It's whether it's at or near, whether it's part of\n15 the general practice. If the requirement were that witnesses\n16 come in and talk about the exact moment they recorded something\n17 every time, business records would never be admitted in court.\n18 That's not what the rule requires.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "19 THE COURT: I'm going to poke around at the law. If\n20 anybody has a case, you may have noticed, I like cases.\n21 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.\n22 THE COURT: I'll take a look during the remainder of\n23 the break.\n24 Can I keep these to look at them?\n25 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, of course.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00018939",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "755",
      "DOJ-OGR-00018939"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}