mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007420.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "492",
    "date": "11/22/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 492 Filed 11/22/21 Page 3 of 13\nPage 3\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nII. Applicable Law\nRelevant evidence is \"not confined to that which directly establishes an element of the crime.\" United States v. Gonzalez, 110 F.3d 941, 942 (2d Cir. 1997). As the Second Circuit has explained, \"[t]o be relevant, evidence need only tend to prove the government's case, and evidence that adds context and dimension to the government's proof of the charges can have that tendency.\" Id. The Second Circuit has also repeatedly held that actions and statements are admissible as direct evidence of the crimes charged, and are \"not considered other crimes evidence under\" Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), if (a) they \"arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense,\" (b) they are \"inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense,\" or (c) they are \"necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial.\" United States v. Carboni, 204 F.3d 39, 44 (2d Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 309 (2d Cir. 2007); United States v. Baez, 349 F.3d 90, 93-94 (2d Cir. 2003). In those\nDOJ-OGR-00007420",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 492 Filed 11/22/21 Page 3 of 13",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. Applicable Law",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Relevant evidence is \"not confined to that which directly establishes an element of the crime.\" United States v. Gonzalez, 110 F.3d 941, 942 (2d Cir. 1997). As the Second Circuit has explained, \"[t]o be relevant, evidence need only tend to prove the government's case, and evidence that adds context and dimension to the government's proof of the charges can have that tendency.\" Id. The Second Circuit has also repeatedly held that actions and statements are admissible as direct evidence of the crimes charged, and are \"not considered other crimes evidence under\" Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), if (a) they \"arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense,\" (b) they are \"inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense,\" or (c) they are \"necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial.\" United States v. Carboni, 204 F.3d 39, 44 (2d Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 309 (2d Cir. 2007); United States v. Baez, 349 F.3d 90, 93-94 (2d Cir. 2003). In those",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007420",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/22/21",
      "1997",
      "2000",
      "2007",
      "2003"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 492",
      "110 F.3d 941",
      "204 F.3d 39",
      "511 F.3d 289",
      "349 F.3d 90",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007420"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is from a legal case, and the content discusses applicable law regarding relevant evidence in a criminal trial."
}