DOJ-OGR-00008306.jpg
729 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
729 KB
Summary
This legal document is a memorandum of law, likely from the prosecution, arguing for the admission of an exhibit (GX 52) into evidence. It counters a defense objection that the witness, Mr. Alessi, cannot authenticate the exhibit because he has no personal knowledge of its creation. The memorandum cites several legal precedents to support the argument that a document can be authenticated under Rule 901(b)(4) based on its distinctive characteristics or a witness's general familiarity, even without direct observation of its creation.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Alessi | Witness |
Mentioned as a witness whose ability to authenticate an exhibit (GX 52) is being challenged by the Defense.
|
| Alessi's wife |
Mentioned in relation to her name not being in exhibit GX 52, unlike other versions Mr. Alessi had seen.
|
|
| Al Farekh | Defendant |
Party in the cited case United States v. Al Farekh, concerning the authentication of handwritten letters.
|
| Tin Yat Chin | Party in a lawsuit |
Party in a cited case where the Second Circuit affirmed the admission of credit card receipts.
|
| Gordon | Defendant |
Party in the cited case United States v. Gordon, which refers to authenticated documents as “parallel documents”.
|
| Bertram | Defendant |
Party in the cited case United States v. Bertram, concerning the authentication of emails.
|
| Gasperini | Defendant |
Party in the cited case United States v. Gasperini.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defense | Legal party |
Objects to Mr. Alessi's ability to authenticate an exhibit.
|
| 2d Cir. | Court |
The Second Circuit court, cited in the cases of United States v. Al Farekh and Tin Yat Chin.
|
| 1st Cir. | Court |
The First Circuit court, cited in the case of United States v. Gordon.
|
| E.D. Ky. | Court |
The Eastern District of Kentucky court, cited in the case of United States v. Bertram.
|
| DOJ-OGR | Government agency |
Appears as a document identifier at the bottom of the page (DOJ-OGR-00008306).
|
Timeline (1 events)
A court proceeding where the Defense objects to the authentication of exhibit GX 52 by witness Mr. Alessi.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the location for "massage" entries that Mr. Alessi recognized in an exhibit.
|
Relationships (1)
The document mentions "his wife's name" in reference to Mr. Alessi.
Key Quotes (6)
"many, many, many, many names"Source
— Mr. Alessi
(Describing what he recognized amongst the entries in an exhibit.)
DOJ-OGR-00008306.jpg
Quote #1
"massage in Palm Beach"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008306.jpg
Quote #2
"appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008306.jpg
Quote #3
"parallel documents"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008306.jpg
Quote #4
"same stationary"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008306.jpg
Quote #5
"indicate a common authorship"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008306.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,149 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 535 Filed 12/09/21 Page 4 of 8
exhibit and that he recognized “many, many, many, many names” amongst the entries, including some of the entries that were for “massage in Palm Beach.” Id. at 851.
The Defense first objects that Mr. Alessi has no personal knowledge about the creation of this particular directory and is thus incapable of authenticating the exhibit. Mr. Alessi acknowledged that GX 52 was a different version than the directories he was familiar with because GX 52 was not as thick as those versions, and his name and his wife’s name were in the version he observed, but neither his name nor his wife’s name was in GX 52. Id. at 853, 865. But a document may be admitted under 901(b)(4) even when no witness saw the creation of the document or the particular copy admitted at trial.
For example, in United States v. Al Farekh, 810 F. App’x 21 (2d Cir. 2020), the court affirmed the district court’s authentication of handwritten letters even though no testifying witness confirmed they had previously examined the letters. Instead, testimony that the “appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics” of the letters were consistent with other letters previously observed was sufficient to satisfy Rule 901. Id. at 24-25. Similarly, in Tin Yat Chin, the Second Circuit affirmed the admission of copies of credit card receipts despite uncertainty about who signed the receipts and when. 371 F.3d at 38; see also United States v. Gordon, 634 F.2d 639, 643-44 (1st Cir. 1980) (referring to authenticated documents as “parallel documents” with distinctive characteristics such as being printed on the “same stationary,” to “indicate a common authorship”). Finally, cases have allowed a witness to authenticate emails under Rule 901(b)(4), even if they were not a recipient of the specific email being admitted, when the witness had a history and familiarity with the defendant’s email communication tendencies. See, e.g., United States v. Bertram, 259 F. Supp. 3d 638 (E.D. Ky. 2017); see also United States v. Gasperini, 16-CR-441 (NGG), 2017 WL
The Defense first objects that Mr. Alessi has no personal knowledge about the creation of this particular directory and is thus incapable of authenticating the exhibit. Mr. Alessi acknowledged that GX 52 was a different version than the directories he was familiar with because GX 52 was not as thick as those versions, and his name and his wife’s name were in the version he observed, but neither his name nor his wife’s name was in GX 52. Id. at 853, 865. But a document may be admitted under 901(b)(4) even when no witness saw the creation of the document or the particular copy admitted at trial.
For example, in United States v. Al Farekh, 810 F. App’x 21 (2d Cir. 2020), the court affirmed the district court’s authentication of handwritten letters even though no testifying witness confirmed they had previously examined the letters. Instead, testimony that the “appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics” of the letters were consistent with other letters previously observed was sufficient to satisfy Rule 901. Id. at 24-25. Similarly, in Tin Yat Chin, the Second Circuit affirmed the admission of copies of credit card receipts despite uncertainty about who signed the receipts and when. 371 F.3d at 38; see also United States v. Gordon, 634 F.2d 639, 643-44 (1st Cir. 1980) (referring to authenticated documents as “parallel documents” with distinctive characteristics such as being printed on the “same stationary,” to “indicate a common authorship”). Finally, cases have allowed a witness to authenticate emails under Rule 901(b)(4), even if they were not a recipient of the specific email being admitted, when the witness had a history and familiarity with the defendant’s email communication tendencies. See, e.g., United States v. Bertram, 259 F. Supp. 3d 638 (E.D. Ky. 2017); see also United States v. Gasperini, 16-CR-441 (NGG), 2017 WL
4
DOJ-OGR-00008306
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document