mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006966.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "457",
    "date": "11/13/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 457 Filed 11/13/21 Page 4 of 8\nPage 4\n(2d Cir. 2007)). To meet this burden, the Government need only introduce “sufficient proof . . . so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification.” United States v. Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31, 38 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). For “a document attributed to the defendant, the prosecution need only provide a rational basis from which the jury could infer that the document did, in fact, belong to [her].” United States v. Osarenkhoe, 439 F. App’x 66, 69 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\n\nEvidence of authenticity “may be direct or circumstantial, and the latter category may include distinctive characteristics of the document itself.” United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 957 (2d Cir. 1990); Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d at 37. Indeed, Rule 901 contemplates multiple avenues through which a proponent may authenticate evidence. For example, the proponent may offer “[t]estimony that an item is what it is claimed to be,” or may offer evidence of “[t]he appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1) and (4).\n\nHere, the testimony of Employee-1 establishes the authenticity of Government Exhibit 52. In particular, the fact that Employee-1 recognizes this exhibit and can identify it as the defendant’s contact book based on its “distinctive characteristics” is all that Rule 901 requires. Indeed, the Second Circuit has affirmed the admission of evidence under similar circumstances, where, as here, the Government does not offer evidence at trial about how the exhibit came into the Government’s possession. In United States v. Al Farekh, 810 F. App’x 21 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order), the defendant argued that the Government had failed to establish the authenticity of “handwritten letters that were found in a USB drive that was handed to an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Afghanistan.” Id. at 24. The Second Circuit rejected the challenge. “Although the Government did not present evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 457 Filed 11/13/21 Page 4 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(2d Cir. 2007)). To meet this burden, the Government need only introduce “sufficient proof . . . so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or identification.” United States v. Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31, 38 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). For “a document attributed to the defendant, the prosecution need only provide a rational basis from which the jury could infer that the document did, in fact, belong to [her].” United States v. Osarenkhoe, 439 F. App’x 66, 69 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Evidence of authenticity “may be direct or circumstantial, and the latter category may include distinctive characteristics of the document itself.” United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 957 (2d Cir. 1990); Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d at 37. Indeed, Rule 901 contemplates multiple avenues through which a proponent may authenticate evidence. For example, the proponent may offer “[t]estimony that an item is what it is claimed to be,” or may offer evidence of “[t]he appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1) and (4).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here, the testimony of Employee-1 establishes the authenticity of Government Exhibit 52. In particular, the fact that Employee-1 recognizes this exhibit and can identify it as the defendant’s contact book based on its “distinctive characteristics” is all that Rule 901 requires. Indeed, the Second Circuit has affirmed the admission of evidence under similar circumstances, where, as here, the Government does not offer evidence at trial about how the exhibit came into the Government’s possession. In United States v. Al Farekh, 810 F. App’x 21 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order), the defendant argued that the Government had failed to establish the authenticity of “handwritten letters that were found in a USB drive that was handed to an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Afghanistan.” Id. at 24. The Second Circuit rejected the challenge. “Although the Government did not present evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006966",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Employee-1"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Federal Bureau of Investigation"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Afghanistan"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/13/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 457",
      "810 F. App’x 21",
      "371 F.3d 31",
      "439 F. App’x 66",
      "922 F.2d 934",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006966"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}