mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008307.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "535",
    "date": "12/09/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 535 Filed 12/09/21 Page 5 of 8\n3140366, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (“The Court is unaware of any authority that authentication of emails can only come through a witness with direct knowledge of the drafting, and Defendant provides none.”).\nConcluding that Mr. Alessi’s testimony sufficiently authenticates GX 52 follows this well-tread path. Mr. Alessi’s testimony established an intimate familiarity with the distinctive directories used in the Palm Beach household over many years and during the time period of the charged conspiracy. He testified that GX 52 was the same “type of book,” with the same type of binding, cover, and information. This testimony of the appearance, content, substance, and other distinctive characteristics of the exhibit is sufficient to satisfy Rule 901.2\nThe Defense’s further objections go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. See Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d at 38. For example, Mr. Alessi was crossed on voir dire that he did not have personal knowledge about the creation of GX 52 or how the exhibit had been maintained since it was allegedly removed from the house. Trial Tr. at 875. He acknowledged that he would not know whether GX 52 had been altered in some way, such as whether pages had been added or whether it had been rebound. Nor could he explain the addition of Post-It notes and other pencil markings in the otherwise type-face book. Trial Tr. at 872-75. But it is well settled that “any flaws in the chain of custody bear only on the weight of the evidence, and not on its admissibility.” United States v. Stuckey, No. 06 Cr. 339 (RPP), 2007 WL 2962594, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing United States v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 34, 57 (2d Cir. 1998)). Thus, arguments as to the Government’s possession of the document or how it has been maintained do not go to authentication. See Al Farekh, 810 F. App’x at 25 (“Although the Government did not present evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the USB drive, . . . any\n2 The Court notes that this conclusion does not rely on the Government’s citation in its December 8, 2021, letter to the transcript of Ms. Maxwell’s April 2016 civil deposition.\n5\nDOJ-OGR-00008307",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 535 Filed 12/09/21 Page 5 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3140366, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (“The Court is unaware of any authority that authentication of emails can only come through a witness with direct knowledge of the drafting, and Defendant provides none.”).\nConcluding that Mr. Alessi’s testimony sufficiently authenticates GX 52 follows this well-tread path. Mr. Alessi’s testimony established an intimate familiarity with the distinctive directories used in the Palm Beach household over many years and during the time period of the charged conspiracy. He testified that GX 52 was the same “type of book,” with the same type of binding, cover, and information. This testimony of the appearance, content, substance, and other distinctive characteristics of the exhibit is sufficient to satisfy Rule 901.2\nThe Defense’s further objections go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. See Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d at 38. For example, Mr. Alessi was crossed on voir dire that he did not have personal knowledge about the creation of GX 52 or how the exhibit had been maintained since it was allegedly removed from the house. Trial Tr. at 875. He acknowledged that he would not know whether GX 52 had been altered in some way, such as whether pages had been added or whether it had been rebound. Nor could he explain the addition of Post-It notes and other pencil markings in the otherwise type-face book. Trial Tr. at 872-75. But it is well settled that “any flaws in the chain of custody bear only on the weight of the evidence, and not on its admissibility.” United States v. Stuckey, No. 06 Cr. 339 (RPP), 2007 WL 2962594, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing United States v. Morrison, 153 F.3d 34, 57 (2d Cir. 1998)). Thus, arguments as to the Government’s possession of the document or how it has been maintained do not go to authentication. See Al Farekh, 810 F. App’x at 25 (“Although the Government did not present evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the USB drive, . . . any",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 The Court notes that this conclusion does not rely on the Government’s citation in its December 8, 2021, letter to the transcript of Ms. Maxwell’s April 2016 civil deposition.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008307",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Alessi",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Palm Beach",
      "E.D.N.Y.",
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "2d Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "December 8, 2021",
      "April 2016"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 535",
      "GX 52",
      "3140366",
      "371 F.3d",
      "06 Cr. 339 (RPP)",
      "2007 WL 2962594",
      "153 F.3d 34",
      "810 F. App'x"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}