mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007421.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "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 4 of 13\nPage 4\ncircumstances, the uncharged crimes evidence is “appropriately treated as part of the very act charged, or, at least, proof of that act.” Quinones, 511 F.3d at 309 (internal citations and quotations marks omitted).\nFederal Rule of Evidence 404(b) allows for the admission of uncharged crimes, wrongs, or other acts for purposes other than proving criminal propensity, “such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The Second Circuit “has long adopted an ‘inclusionary’ approach to the admission of uncharged crime evidence, under which evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible for any purpose other than to show a defendant’s criminal propensity.” United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211, 221 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the defendant claims her conduct has an innocent explanation, the admission of such evidence of other acts is particularly appropriate. See, e.g., United States v. Zackson, 12 F.3d 1178, 1182 (2d Cir. 1993) (“Where a defendant claims that his conduct has an innocent explanation, prior act evidence is generally admissible to prove that the defendant acted with the state of mind necessary to commit the offense charged.”). And where Rule 404(b) evidence is offered to show the defendant’s state of mind, all that is required is that the evidence be “sufficiently similar to the conduct at issue to permit the jury to draw a reasonable inference of knowledge or intent from the other act.” United States v. Cadet, 664 F.3d 27, 32 (2d Cir. 2011) (alteration in original, internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Evidence offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b) may only be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is “substantially outweighed” by the danger of unfair prejudice. Zackson, 12 F.3d at 1182; see Fed. R. Evid. 403.\nIII. Discussion\nEvidence relating to Minor Victim-3’s testimony is direct evidence of the conspiracies",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 492 Filed 11/22/21 Page 4 of 13",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "circumstances, the uncharged crimes evidence is “appropriately treated as part of the very act charged, or, at least, proof of that act.” Quinones, 511 F.3d at 309 (internal citations and quotations marks omitted).\nFederal Rule of Evidence 404(b) allows for the admission of uncharged crimes, wrongs, or other acts for purposes other than proving criminal propensity, “such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The Second Circuit “has long adopted an ‘inclusionary’ approach to the admission of uncharged crime evidence, under which evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible for any purpose other than to show a defendant’s criminal propensity.” United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211, 221 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the defendant claims her conduct has an innocent explanation, the admission of such evidence of other acts is particularly appropriate. See, e.g., United States v. Zackson, 12 F.3d 1178, 1182 (2d Cir. 1993) (“Where a defendant claims that his conduct has an innocent explanation, prior act evidence is generally admissible to prove that the defendant acted with the state of mind necessary to commit the offense charged.”). And where Rule 404(b) evidence is offered to show the defendant’s state of mind, all that is required is that the evidence be “sufficiently similar to the conduct at issue to permit the jury to draw a reasonable inference of knowledge or intent from the other act.” United States v. Cadet, 664 F.3d 27, 32 (2d Cir. 2011) (alteration in original, internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Evidence offered for a proper purpose under Rule 404(b) may only be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is “substantially outweighed” by the danger of unfair prejudice. Zackson, 12 F.3d at 1182; see Fed. R. Evid. 403.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. Discussion",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Evidence relating to Minor Victim-3’s testimony is direct evidence of the conspiracies",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007421",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Quinones",
      "Paulino",
      "Zackson",
      "Cadet",
      "Minor Victim-3"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/22/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 492",
      "511 F.3d 309",
      "445 F.3d 211",
      "12 F.3d 1178",
      "664 F.3d 27",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007421"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and legible. There are no visible redactions or damages."
}