DOJ-OGR-00018933.pdf

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 71 of 262 1776 LC8Cmax3 Hesse - direct way we offered similar messages through a previous witness. THE COURT: So you have to take the objection when it comes. I don't think there is a waiver theory as to future objections. Are you seeking to offer the names and phone numbers for their truth? MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. And here, this witness has testified that they would receive these calls, memorialize it at the same time the person was recording it. And here, we're not offering this for the truth of the particular phone number, but that a person identifying themselves that way had called and left a message on that date. That is consistent with the testimony of victims who described calling the house and the name of a victim who testified yesterday is in these messages. The names are also consistent with the names of other individuals who witnesses have testified about contacting the house and being involved in scheduling massage appointments. So with respect to the business records issue, here, this witness has testified -- THE COURT: So the contention is that it's a business record? MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor. In addition, it's memorializing the statement of the person calling at the time they made it. So it's confirming that a person identifying themself that way contacted the house at that time. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00018933