DOJ-OGR-00008308.jpg
731 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal order (evidentiary ruling)
File Size:
731 KB
Summary
This document is page 6 of a court order filed on December 9, 2021, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court overrules the Defense's objections to the admission of a 'directory' (contact book) on both authentication and hearsay grounds. The Judge cites Second Circuit precedents (Al-Moayad, Londono) to establish that address books can be admitted for the non-hearsay purpose of linking the possessor of the document to the names listed within, rather than proving the accuracy of the contact details.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Alessi | Witness |
Provided testimony that surmounted Rule 901's minimal bar for authentication of evidence.
|
| The Defense | Legal Team |
Objected to evidence on authentication and hearsay grounds (objections overruled).
|
| The Court | Judicial Authority |
Overruled defense objections regarding the directory.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals cited for legal precedent regarding hearsay and address books.
|
|
| Western Union |
Mentioned in case citation (United States v. Londono) regarding wire receipts.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00008308).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (1)
Court relied on Alessi's testimony to overrule authentication objection.
Key Quotes (3)
"Mr. Alessi’s testimony sufficiently surmounts Rule 901’s “minimal” bar."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008308.jpg
Quote #1
"The directory does not constitute hearsay because it is not being offered for the truth that the names listed identify a particular individual or that the phone numbers listed next to the names are correct."Source
DOJ-OGR-00008308.jpg
Quote #2
"The Second Circuit has affirmed the admission of documents that provide names and contact information for the non-hearsay purpose of linking the individual that possessed that document to that name or phone number"Source
DOJ-OGR-00008308.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,151 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 535 Filed 12/09/21 Page 6 of 8
remaining questions as to the reliability of the letters go to their evidentiary weight, not their
admissibility.”). Mr. Alessi’s testimony sufficiently surmounts Rule 901’s “minimal” bar. The
Defense’s objection on authentication grounds is accordingly overruled.
admissibility.”). Mr. Alessi’s testimony sufficiently surmounts Rule 901’s “minimal” bar. The
Defense’s objection on authentication grounds is accordingly overruled.
The Court also overrules the Defense’s objection on hearsay grounds. The directory does
not constitute hearsay because it is not being offered for the truth that the names listed identify a
particular individual or that the phone numbers listed next to the names are correct. The Second
Circuit has affirmed the admission of documents that provide names and contact information for
the non-hearsay purpose of linking the individual that possessed that document to that name or
phone number, rather than for the truth of that contact information. For example, in United
States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2008), the defense objected on hearsay grounds to
the admission of two address books that belonged to mujahidin fighters that listed the
defendant’s name and a phone number. On appeal, the Second Circuit held that the address
books were not hearsay because they were not admitted to establish that the phone number next
to defendant’s name “was, in fact, his phone number.” Id. at 176. Rather, it was relevant alone
that his “name and contact information appeared in the address books of two men identified as
mujahidin fighters.” Id.
not constitute hearsay because it is not being offered for the truth that the names listed identify a
particular individual or that the phone numbers listed next to the names are correct. The Second
Circuit has affirmed the admission of documents that provide names and contact information for
the non-hearsay purpose of linking the individual that possessed that document to that name or
phone number, rather than for the truth of that contact information. For example, in United
States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2008), the defense objected on hearsay grounds to
the admission of two address books that belonged to mujahidin fighters that listed the
defendant’s name and a phone number. On appeal, the Second Circuit held that the address
books were not hearsay because they were not admitted to establish that the phone number next
to defendant’s name “was, in fact, his phone number.” Id. at 176. Rather, it was relevant alone
that his “name and contact information appeared in the address books of two men identified as
mujahidin fighters.” Id.
In an analogous line of cases, the Second Circuit has regularly admitted for non-hearsay
purposes documents that contain a name for the fact that a person claiming to have that name
took a particular action. For example, in United States v. Londono, 175 F. App’x 370, 373 (2d
Cir. 2006), the Second Circuit affirmed the admission of Western Union wire receipts to prove
that a person that claimed to have the defendant’s name completed wire orders. The Government
also admitted other circumstantial evidence to permit the jury to infer that the receipts were
“linked to” the defendant. Id. at 374; see also United States v. Zapata, 356 F. Supp. 2d 323,
purposes documents that contain a name for the fact that a person claiming to have that name
took a particular action. For example, in United States v. Londono, 175 F. App’x 370, 373 (2d
Cir. 2006), the Second Circuit affirmed the admission of Western Union wire receipts to prove
that a person that claimed to have the defendant’s name completed wire orders. The Government
also admitted other circumstantial evidence to permit the jury to infer that the receipts were
“linked to” the defendant. Id. at 374; see also United States v. Zapata, 356 F. Supp. 2d 323,
6
DOJ-OGR-00008308
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document