mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006781.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "73",
    "document_number": "452",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452 Filed 11/12/21 Page 73 of 84\nevidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the USB drive, Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4) permits authentication based on '[t]he appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.' Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Fed. R. Evid 901(b)(4)). Witness testimony about the content of the letters was \"sufficient to pass the relatively low bar for authentication of evidence,\" and \"any remaining questions as to the reliability of the letters go to their evidentiary weight, not their admissibility.\" Id. at 24-25.\n\nSimilarly, although physical evidence may be authenticated through a chain of custody, \"any flaws in the chain of custody bear only on the weight of the evidence, and not on its admissibility.\" United States v. Stuckey, No. 06 Cr. 339 (RPP), 2007 WL 2962594, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing United States v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 34, 57 (2d Cir. 1998)); see also United States v. Hemmings, 482 F. App'x 640, 643 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order) (similar). \"Evidence should be excluded on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.\" United States v. Cilins, No. 13 CR. 315 (WHP), 2014 WL 173414, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).\n\nB. Discussion\n\nThe defense's challenges to the Government's exhibits largely turn on the Government's ability to authenticate them. Those arguments are premature. At trial, the Government expects that witnesses familiar with the exhibits will testify that the items are what the Government claims they are. The defendant is not entitled to a preview of the Government's case-in-chief at this juncture.\n\n72\nDOJ-OGR-00006781",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452 Filed 11/12/21 Page 73 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the USB drive, Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4) permits authentication based on '[t]he appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.' Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Fed. R. Evid 901(b)(4)). Witness testimony about the content of the letters was \"sufficient to pass the relatively low bar for authentication of evidence,\" and \"any remaining questions as to the reliability of the letters go to their evidentiary weight, not their admissibility.\" Id. at 24-25.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Similarly, although physical evidence may be authenticated through a chain of custody, \"any flaws in the chain of custody bear only on the weight of the evidence, and not on its admissibility.\" United States v. Stuckey, No. 06 Cr. 339 (RPP), 2007 WL 2962594, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing United States v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 34, 57 (2d Cir. 1998)); see also United States v. Hemmings, 482 F. App'x 640, 643 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order) (similar). \"Evidence should be excluded on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.\" United States v. Cilins, No. 13 CR. 315 (WHP), 2014 WL 173414, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Discussion",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defense's challenges to the Government's exhibits largely turn on the Government's ability to authenticate them. Those arguments are premature. At trial, the Government expects that witnesses familiar with the exhibits will testify that the items are what the Government claims they are. The defendant is not entitled to a preview of the Government's case-in-chief at this juncture.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "72",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006781",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Federal Rule of Evidence",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21",
      "Jan. 15, 2014"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 452",
      "06 Cr. 339 (RPP)",
      "13 CR. 315 (WHP)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006781"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, with a formal and legal tone. The text includes citations to legal precedents and references to specific court cases."
}