mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011152.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "document_number": "692",
    "date": "11/22/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 14 of 17\n63. These out of court statements would be hearsay if admitted for their truth, and so are presumptively inadmissible at trial. Fed. R. Evid. 802. The Defense identifies several means by which it may admit these hearsay statements. Def. Br. at 14–17.\nFirst, \"[u]nder Rule 703, experts can testify to opinions based on inadmissible evidence, including hearsay, if 'experts in the field reasonably rely on such evidence in forming their opinions.'\" United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179, 197 (2d Cir. 2008). But Rule 703 does not permit an expert to \"simply transmit that hearsay to the jury.\" Id. Rather, those underlying facts and data that would otherwise be inadmissible may be disclosed to the jury \"if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.\" Fed. R. Evid. 703. Here, the hearsay underlying Dr. Hall's diagnoses, including _____________________, would have little probative value unless the Government were to challenge the accuracy of Dr. Hall's diagnoses. See United States v. Chai, No. 13-CR-290 (PAC), 2015 WL 293995, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2015). The Government represents in its brief that it would not do so in the event that Dr. Hall's diagnoses are admitted. Gov't Br. at 13. And admitting the underlying hearsay, without a relevant need to substantiate the accuracy of Dr. Hall's conclusions, would result in significant prejudice, including confusing the jury and delaying the trial with a large volume of unnecessary details. The Court therefore concludes that, based on the parties' current proffers, the facts and data underlying Dr. Hall's opinions are not admissible via Rule 703.\nSecond, the Defense says that Alleged Victim 4's statements are admissible under one of two hearsay exceptions in Rule 803. Def. Br. at 15. It says the statements were statements of her \"then-existing state of mind . . . or emotional, sensory, or physical condition.\" Fed. R. Evid. 803(3). But while a number of Alleged Victim 4's statements to Dr. Hall may pertain to motives\n14\nDOJ-OGR-00011152",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 14 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "63. These out of court statements would be hearsay if admitted for their truth, and so are presumptively inadmissible at trial. Fed. R. Evid. 802. The Defense identifies several means by which it may admit these hearsay statements. Def. Br. at 14–17.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, \"[u]nder Rule 703, experts can testify to opinions based on inadmissible evidence, including hearsay, if 'experts in the field reasonably rely on such evidence in forming their opinions.'\" United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179, 197 (2d Cir. 2008). But Rule 703 does not permit an expert to \"simply transmit that hearsay to the jury.\" Id. Rather, those underlying facts and data that would otherwise be inadmissible may be disclosed to the jury \"if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.\" Fed. R. Evid. 703. Here, the hearsay underlying Dr. Hall's diagnoses, including _____________________, would have little probative value unless the Government were to challenge the accuracy of Dr. Hall's diagnoses. See United States v. Chai, No. 13-CR-290 (PAC), 2015 WL 293995, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2015). The Government represents in its brief that it would not do so in the event that Dr. Hall's diagnoses are admitted. Gov't Br. at 13. And admitting the underlying hearsay, without a relevant need to substantiate the accuracy of Dr. Hall's conclusions, would result in significant prejudice, including confusing the jury and delaying the trial with a large volume of unnecessary details. The Court therefore concludes that, based on the parties' current proffers, the facts and data underlying Dr. Hall's opinions are not admissible via Rule 703.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, the Defense says that Alleged Victim 4's statements are admissible under one of two hearsay exceptions in Rule 803. Def. Br. at 15. It says the statements were statements of her \"then-existing state of mind . . . or emotional, sensory, or physical condition.\" Fed. R. Evid. 803(3). But while a number of Alleged Victim 4's statements to Dr. Hall may pertain to motives",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "14",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011152",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Hall",
      "Alleged Victim 4"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/22/21",
      "Jan. 22, 2015"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 692",
      "No. 13-CR-290 (PAC)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. There are redactions in the text, indicating sensitive or confidential information has been removed."
}