mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006406.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "46 of 54",
    "document_number": "438",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 438 Filed 11/12/21 Page 46 of 54\nautomatically admit his alternative explanation for his flight, insofar as he wishes to bring in his out-of-court statements to others on social media or to prison officials.). The Government is able to introduce the defendant's statements as statements of an opposing party under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A). See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A) (defining as “not hearsay” a statement “offered against an opposing party” and “made by the party”). But the Federal Rules contain no parallel provision for the defendant. See Marin, 669 F.2d at 84. Instead, if the defendant wishes to place her own statements before the jury, she must testify so the Government may cross-examine her. See United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 153 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that defendant “could have testified to everything asserted in his statement, [but] he could not offer the document itself for the truth of the matter asserted”), overruled on other grounds by Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009).\nNotwithstanding the hearsay bar, a defendant may in limited circumstances invoke the so-called “rule of completeness” to require the introduction of additional portions of his or her own out-of-court statement when the Government offers excerpts of it. See Fed. R. Evid. 106 (“If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part—or any other writing or recorded statement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.”). “Under this principle, even though a statement may be hearsay, an ‘omitted portion of [the] statement must be placed in evidence if necessary to explain the admitted portion, to place the admitted portion in context, to avoid misleading the jury, or to ensure fair and impartial understanding of the admitted portion.”\nUnited States v. Johnson, 507 F.3d 793, 796 (2d Cir. 2007) (alteration in original) (quoting\n45\nDOJ-OGR-00006406",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 438 Filed 11/12/21 Page 46 of 54",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "automatically admit his alternative explanation for his flight, insofar as he wishes to bring in his out-of-court statements to others on social media or to prison officials.). The Government is able to introduce the defendant's statements as statements of an opposing party under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A). See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A) (defining as “not hearsay” a statement “offered against an opposing party” and “made by the party”). But the Federal Rules contain no parallel provision for the defendant. See Marin, 669 F.2d at 84. Instead, if the defendant wishes to place her own statements before the jury, she must testify so the Government may cross-examine her. See United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 153 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that defendant “could have testified to everything asserted in his statement, [but] he could not offer the document itself for the truth of the matter asserted”), overruled on other grounds by Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009).\nNotwithstanding the hearsay bar, a defendant may in limited circumstances invoke the so-called “rule of completeness” to require the introduction of additional portions of his or her own out-of-court statement when the Government offers excerpts of it. See Fed. R. Evid. 106 (“If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part—or any other writing or recorded statement—that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.”). “Under this principle, even though a statement may be hearsay, an ‘omitted portion of [the] statement must be placed in evidence if necessary to explain the admitted portion, to place the admitted portion in context, to avoid misleading the jury, or to ensure fair and impartial understanding of the admitted portion.”\nUnited States v. Johnson, 507 F.3d 793, 796 (2d Cir. 2007) (alteration in original) (quoting",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "45",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006406",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Yousef",
      "Montejo",
      "Johnson"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Louisiana"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21",
      "2003",
      "2009",
      "2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 438",
      "Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A)",
      "Fed. R. Evid. 106",
      "669 F.2d",
      "327 F.3d 56",
      "556 U.S. 778",
      "507 F.3d 793",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006406"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing rules of evidence and hearsay. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible."
}