mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006927.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "47",
    "document_number": "453",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 453 Filed 11/12/21 Page 47 of 52\n\nprejudice because the [witness's] choice of language implied that he and the prosecution believed the complainant's testimony.\" Id.\n\nFor these and the previously stated reasons, Ms. Maxwell asks the Court to order that the parties, the witnesses, and the Court use individuals' names in the presence of the jury.\n\nXIII. THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 52, 251, 288, 294, 313, 606 AND THE SEARCH OF EL BRILLO WAY\n\nA. The Court Should Exclude the Challenged Government Exhibits\n\nRule 901(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that \"[t]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.\" See also Ricketts v. City of Hartford, 74 F.3d 1397, 1409 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 496-500 (2d Cir.1984) (discussing the interaction between Fed.R.Evid. 104 and 901). \"In order for a piece of evidence to be of probative value, there must be proof that it is what its proponent says it is. The requirement of authentication is thus a condition precedent to admitting evidence.\" United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 497 (2d Cir. 1984). A motion in limine to preclude evidence calls on the \"[C]ourt to make a preliminary determination on the admissibility of evidence under Rule 104 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.\" Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Schneider, 379 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). \"The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule in advance of trial on the admissibility and relevance of certain forecasted evidence.\" Dougherty v. County of Suffolk, No. CV 13-6493 (AKT), 2018 WL 1902336, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).\n\nMs. Maxwell has filed in limine motions challenging the admissibility of discrete items of evidence that the government intends to offer at trial. As discussed below, the Court should hold\n\n41\n\nDOJ-OGR-00006927",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 453 Filed 11/12/21 Page 47 of 52",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "prejudice because the [witness's] choice of language implied that he and the prosecution believed the complainant's testimony.\" Id.\n\nFor these and the previously stated reasons, Ms. Maxwell asks the Court to order that the parties, the witnesses, and the Court use individuals' names in the presence of the jury.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "XIII. THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE INTRODUCTION OF GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 52, 251, 288, 294, 313, 606 AND THE SEARCH OF EL BRILLO WAY",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. The Court Should Exclude the Challenged Government Exhibits\n\nRule 901(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that \"[t]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.\" See also Ricketts v. City of Hartford, 74 F.3d 1397, 1409 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 496-500 (2d Cir.1984) (discussing the interaction between Fed.R.Evid. 104 and 901). \"In order for a piece of evidence to be of probative value, there must be proof that it is what its proponent says it is. The requirement of authentication is thus a condition precedent to admitting evidence.\" United States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 497 (2d Cir. 1984). A motion in limine to preclude evidence calls on the \"[C]ourt to make a preliminary determination on the admissibility of evidence under Rule 104 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.\" Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Schneider, 379 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). \"The purpose of a motion in limine is to allow the trial court to rule in advance of trial on the admissibility and relevance of certain forecasted evidence.\" Dougherty v. County of Suffolk, No. CV 13-6493 (AKT), 2018 WL 1902336, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).\n\nMs. Maxwell has filed in limine motions challenging the admissibility of discrete items of evidence that the government intends to offer at trial. As discussed below, the Court should hold",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "41",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006927",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Hartford",
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21",
      "Apr. 20, 2018"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 453",
      "CV 13-6493 (AKT)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, with a formal tone and legal language. The text includes citations to legal precedents and references to specific court rules."
}