mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007104.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "53",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 53 of 127 53 LB15MAX2 to something alleged in the indictment doesn't change the 801(d)(2)(E) analysis and that is it has to be made in the course of and in furtherance of a conspiracy. So post-event statements that don't have anything to do with furtherance of the conspiracy are simply hearsay and inadmissible. I think that's a pretty simple proposition, your Honor. MS. MOE: Your Honor, among other reasons why we would like time to think about this further and address it in more detail, is that Rule 801(d)(2)(E) is not limited to the charged conspiracy at trial, a statement said in furtherance of the conspiracy even if it is not the charged conspiracy. And so we would want to think through that as well. And we would also want to think through, even if a statement is offered by a co-conspirator, whether it is being offered under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) at all. And so we would just ask for additional time to think through that to make sure we give an accurate and thorough representation to the Court. THE COURT: So, I will stick with the process and schedule that I have indicated but I do think we will separate out statements that post-date the conspiracy as charged in the indictment and the government will indicate grounds for the specific introduction of any of those anticipated statements. OK, Ms. Moe? MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007104",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 53 of 127 53 LB15MAX2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "to something alleged in the indictment doesn't change the 801(d)(2)(E) analysis and that is it has to be made in the course of and in furtherance of a conspiracy. So post-event statements that don't have anything to do with furtherance of the conspiracy are simply hearsay and inadmissible. I think that's a pretty simple proposition, your Honor. MS. MOE: Your Honor, among other reasons why we would like time to think about this further and address it in more detail, is that Rule 801(d)(2)(E) is not limited to the charged conspiracy at trial, a statement said in furtherance of the conspiracy even if it is not the charged conspiracy. And so we would want to think through that as well. And we would also want to think through, even if a statement is offered by a co-conspirator, whether it is being offered under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) at all. And so we would just ask for additional time to think through that to make sure we give an accurate and thorough representation to the Court. THE COURT: So, I will stick with the process and schedule that I have indicated but I do think we will separate out statements that post-date the conspiracy as charged in the indictment and the government will indicate grounds for the specific introduction of any of those anticipated statements. OK, Ms. Moe? MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007104",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007104"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}