DOJ-OGR-00013360.json 4.0 KB

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354
  1. {
  2. "document_metadata": {
  3. "page_number": "82",
  4. "document_number": "755",
  5. "date": "08/10/22",
  6. "document_type": "court transcript",
  7. "has_handwriting": false,
  8. "has_stamps": false
  9. },
  10. "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 82 of 262 1787 LC8Cmax3 Hesse - direct records, which I think these are those kinds of records, are redacted and you get -- there is a very limited range of information on the record. THE COURT: You were handed a note. Do you have another point? MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, and Ms. Menninger makes a good point. Police officers, for example, or hospital folks typically get identification when they're recording this information, so they actually know who's speaking to them, and that is some circumstantial trustworthiness at least of ID or something like that. Here, we don't have many instances, anything other than JE Natasha - this is the 2D that I'm looking at - and then a phone number with no date and no signature on it. So there are many of these throughout that simply don't have any indicia of reliability or satisfy even the minimum requirements for the business record exception. MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think the Court has it exactly right, that the issue here is whether they can be offered to show who was calling the house, the dates and times of those calls. That's the purpose for which these are being offered. With respect to other indicators of trustworthiness, now two witnesses have testified that a person with a first and last name appearing in these records, in fact, called the house and was there during this time period. It would be exceedingly SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013360",
  11. "text_blocks": [
  12. {
  13. "type": "printed",
  14. "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 82 of 262 1787 LC8Cmax3 Hesse - direct",
  15. "position": "header"
  16. },
  17. {
  18. "type": "printed",
  19. "content": "records, which I think these are those kinds of records, are redacted and you get -- there is a very limited range of information on the record. THE COURT: You were handed a note. Do you have another point? MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, and Ms. Menninger makes a good point. Police officers, for example, or hospital folks typically get identification when they're recording this information, so they actually know who's speaking to them, and that is some circumstantial trustworthiness at least of ID or something like that. Here, we don't have many instances, anything other than JE Natasha - this is the 2D that I'm looking at - and then a phone number with no date and no signature on it. So there are many of these throughout that simply don't have any indicia of reliability or satisfy even the minimum requirements for the business record exception. MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think the Court has it exactly right, that the issue here is whether they can be offered to show who was calling the house, the dates and times of those calls. That's the purpose for which these are being offered. With respect to other indicators of trustworthiness, now two witnesses have testified that a person with a first and last name appearing in these records, in fact, called the house and was there during this time period. It would be exceedingly",
  20. "position": "main"
  21. },
  22. {
  23. "type": "printed",
  24. "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
  25. "position": "footer"
  26. },
  27. {
  28. "type": "printed",
  29. "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013360",
  30. "position": "footer"
  31. }
  32. ],
  33. "entities": {
  34. "people": [
  35. "JE Natasha",
  36. "Ms. Menninger",
  37. "MR. PAGLIUCA",
  38. "MS. MOE"
  39. ],
  40. "organizations": [
  41. "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
  42. ],
  43. "locations": [],
  44. "dates": [
  45. "08/10/22"
  46. ],
  47. "reference_numbers": [
  48. "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
  49. "755",
  50. "DOJ-OGR-00013360"
  51. ]
  52. },
  53. "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the text."
  54. }