{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "382",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 382 Filed 10/29/21 Page 11 of 69\n\nThese arguments are about things that have not occurred and may not occur. Ms. Maxwell's counsel understand the rules of evidence and the law. Much of what may or may not happen in this trial will depend on the evidence produced by the government. Ms. Maxwell has no burden of proof and is not required to respond to hypothetical demands or provide previews about how she intends to cross examine witnesses. Consistent with prudent judicial practices, the Court should decline to rule on these hypothetical complaints. See Seymour v. Bache & Co., 502 F. Supp. 115, 119 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (\"In light of the uncertainties surrounding these legal issues, a potentially unnecessary, and thus merely advisory, ruling should be avoided.\"); In re Refco Cap. Markets, Ltd. Brokerage Customer Sec. Litig., No. 06 CIV. 643 (GEL), 2008 WL 4962985, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2008), aff'd sub nom. Cap. Mgmt. Select Fund Ltd. v. Bennett, 680 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2012) (\"However, this request amounts to a demand for an advisory ruling as to the effect of an entirely hypothetical future pleading that might be asserted given the occurrence of contingent future events.\"); M.K. ex rel. Mrs. K. v. Sergi, 554 F. Supp. 2d 233, 242 (D. Conn. 2008) (\"The Court again declines to provide an advisory ruling on a matter that is not yet ripe.\"); Yokohama Rubber Co. LTD v. Stamford Tyres Int'l PTE LTD, No. SA-CV-0700010-CJCMGLX, 2008 WL 11342955, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2008) (\"The Court will not issue an advisory ruling on a theoretical affirmative defense that may not actually be asserted.\").\n\nThe government's overreaching extends to areas that cannot be anticipated prior to witness testimony, and the trial court's power to limit (or not limit) cross-examination is often best exercised after hearing the direct testimony of the witnesses. United States v. Evanchik, 413 F.2d 950, 953 (2d Cir. 1969); United States v. Crisonas, 416 F.2d 107, 117 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 961 (1970); United States v. Cacchillo, 416 F.2d 231, 234 (2d Cir. 1969).\n\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00005466",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 382 Filed 10/29/21 Page 11 of 69",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "These arguments are about things that have not occurred and may not occur. Ms. Maxwell's counsel understand the rules of evidence and the law. Much of what may or may not happen in this trial will depend on the evidence produced by the government. Ms. Maxwell has no burden of proof and is not required to respond to hypothetical demands or provide previews about how she intends to cross examine witnesses. Consistent with prudent judicial practices, the Court should decline to rule on these hypothetical complaints. See Seymour v. Bache & Co., 502 F. Supp. 115, 119 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (\"In light of the uncertainties surrounding these legal issues, a potentially unnecessary, and thus merely advisory, ruling should be avoided.\"); In re Refco Cap. Markets, Ltd. Brokerage Customer Sec. Litig., No. 06 CIV. 643 (GEL), 2008 WL 4962985, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2008), aff'd sub nom. Cap. Mgmt. Select Fund Ltd. v. Bennett, 680 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2012) (\"However, this request amounts to a demand for an advisory ruling as to the effect of an entirely hypothetical future pleading that might be asserted given the occurrence of contingent future events.\"); M.K. ex rel. Mrs. K. v. Sergi, 554 F. Supp. 2d 233, 242 (D. Conn. 2008) (\"The Court again declines to provide an advisory ruling on a matter that is not yet ripe.\"); Yokohama Rubber Co. LTD v. Stamford Tyres Int'l PTE LTD, No. SA-CV-0700010-CJCMGLX, 2008 WL 11342955, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2008) (\"The Court will not issue an advisory ruling on a theoretical affirmative defense that may not actually be asserted.\").",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government's overreaching extends to areas that cannot be anticipated prior to witness testimony, and the trial court's power to limit (or not limit) cross-examination is often best exercised after hearing the direct testimony of the witnesses. United States v. Evanchik, 413 F.2d 950, 953 (2d Cir. 1969); United States v. Crisonas, 416 F.2d 107, 117 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 961 (1970); United States v. Cacchillo, 416 F.2d 231, 234 (2d Cir. 1969).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005466",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Seymour",
      "Bache",
      "Mrs. K",
      "Sergi",
      "Bennett",
      "Evanchik",
      "Crisonas",
      "Cacchillo"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "D. Conn.",
      "C.D. Cal.",
      "2d Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "Nov. 20, 2008",
      "Feb. 19, 2008",
      "1980",
      "2012",
      "2008",
      "1969",
      "1970"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 382",
      "06 CIV. 643 (GEL)",
      "SA-CV-0700010-CJCMGLX",
      "502 F. Supp. 115",
      "680 F.3d 214",
      "554 F. Supp. 2d 233",
      "413 F.2d 950",
      "416 F.2d 107",
      "416 F.2d 231",
      "397 U.S. 961"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses legal arguments and cites various court cases. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}