mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006792.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "84 of 84",
    "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 84 of 84\nenforcement officers identified by the defense as experts and will not elicit expert testimony from them. Those witnesses are being called as fact witnesses to describe, for instance, the execution of a search and evidence seized during that search.24\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nFor the reasons set forth above, the Government respectfully requests that the Court deny the defendant's motions in limine.\n\nDated: October 25, 2021\nNew York, New York\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS\nUnited States Attorney for the\nSouthern District of New York\n\nBy:    /s/\nAlison Moe\nLara Pomerantz\nAndrew Rohrbach\nAssistant United States Attorneys\n\npartner in the narcotics distribution conspiracy. Garcia, 413 F.3d at 216. That is distinguishable from cases where, as expected here, witnesses testify based on their personal involvement in certain investigative steps.\n24 It bears noting that the defense's motion is expressly concerned about testimony from case agents (Def. Mot. 10 at 5 n.2), and testimony about \"the case, its origins, and the investigation\" (id. at 3), which it considers to be improper expert testimony. The Government has moved to preclude the defense from offering such evidence, including by calling the case agents identified in its Touhy notice. (See Gov't Motions in Limine Section III). Accordingly, if the defense plans to call case agents for such testimony—which the Court should preclude—the defense must provide expert notice of such testimony.\n\n83\nDOJ-OGR-00006792",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452 Filed 11/12/21 Page 84 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "enforcement officers identified by the defense as experts and will not elicit expert testimony from them. Those witnesses are being called as fact witnesses to describe, for instance, the execution of a search and evidence seized during that search.24",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CONCLUSION",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For the reasons set forth above, the Government respectfully requests that the Court deny the defendant's motions in limine.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Dated: October 25, 2021\nNew York, New York",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Respectfully submitted,\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS\nUnited States Attorney for the\nSouthern District of New York",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "By:    /s/\nAlison Moe\nLara Pomerantz\nAndrew Rohrbach\nAssistant United States Attorneys",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "partner in the narcotics distribution conspiracy. Garcia, 413 F.3d at 216. That is distinguishable from cases where, as expected here, witnesses testify based on their personal involvement in certain investigative steps.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "24 It bears noting that the defense's motion is expressly concerned about testimony from case agents (Def. Mot. 10 at 5 n.2), and testimony about \"the case, its origins, and the investigation\" (id. at 3), which it considers to be improper expert testimony. The Government has moved to preclude the defense from offering such evidence, including by calling the case agents identified in its Touhy notice. (See Gov't Motions in Limine Section III). Accordingly, if the defense plans to call case agents for such testimony—which the Court should preclude—the defense must provide expert notice of such testimony.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "83",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006792",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "DAMIAN WILLIAMS",
      "Alison Moe",
      "Lara Pomerantz",
      "Andrew Rohrbach",
      "Garcia"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "October 25, 2021",
      "11/12/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 452",
      "413 F.3d at 216",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006792"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}