mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00018945.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "83",
    "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 83 of 262 1788 LC8Cmax3 Hesse - direct strange to suggest that her full name would appear in this message book for no reason. There are all kinds of indicia of trustworthiness here. Again, given the purpose for which these are being offered and the substantial foundation for both authentication and admissibility as a business record, we believe these should be admitted. THE COURT: On the purpose point, the name given by the caller, date and time of call, are you also seeking the phone numbers? MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, that that person was reporting a certain callback number. Again, the purpose of the messages was to report to the defendant and Mr. Epstein who was calling. So here, that information is relevant in terms of knowledge and otherwise, the fact that a caller provided that information on a certain date and a time, that's the purpose for which they're being offered. THE COURT: I will overrule the objection. I do think between the two witnesses, Alessi and the current witness, is sufficient foundation for application of 803.6 has been made. These are not the kind of miscellaneous jottings that are excluded from calendars or the like. There is a record of a sufficiently regular practice having reviewed the full books in their entirety, and based on the testimony of the two SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00018945",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 83 of 262 1788 LC8Cmax3 Hesse - direct",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "strange to suggest that her full name would appear in this message book for no reason. There are all kinds of indicia of trustworthiness here. Again, given the purpose for which these are being offered and the substantial foundation for both authentication and admissibility as a business record, we believe these should be admitted. THE COURT: On the purpose point, the name given by the caller, date and time of call, are you also seeking the phone numbers? MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor, that that person was reporting a certain callback number. Again, the purpose of the messages was to report to the defendant and Mr. Epstein who was calling. So here, that information is relevant in terms of knowledge and otherwise, the fact that a caller provided that information on a certain date and a time, that's the purpose for which they're being offered. THE COURT: I will overrule the objection. I do think between the two witnesses, Alessi and the current witness, is sufficient foundation for application of 803.6 has been made. These are not the kind of miscellaneous jottings that are excluded from calendars or the like. There is a record of a sufficiently regular practice having reviewed the full books in their entirety, and based on the testimony of the two",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00018945",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alessi",
      "Epstein",
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "755",
      "803.6",
      "DOJ-OGR-00018945"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}