{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "64",
    "date": "October 14, 2020",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 64 Filed 10/14/20 Page 4 of 6\n\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nOctober 14, 2020\nPage 4\n\nFor example, Count Five alleges that Ms. Maxwell lied in the following exchange:\n\nQ: Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages? If you know.\n\nA: I don't know what you're talking about.\n\nSimilarly, Count Six alleges that Ms. Maxwell lied in the following exchange:\n\nQ: Other than yourself . . . with whom did Mr. Epstein have sexual activities?\n\nA: I wasn't aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him other than myself.\n\nQ: I want to make sure that I'm clear. Is it your testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were not aware that Ms. Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than yourself . . .?\n\nA: That is my testimony, that is correct.\n\nThe government has spoken to numerous individuals who claim to have been assaulted by Epstein after 1997, but do not implicate Ms. Maxwell in the assault or claim that she knew about it in any way. That bolsters Ms. Maxwell's defense that she was not aware of either Epstein's scheme to recruit and sexually abuse underage girls, or that Epstein was engaging in sexual activities with others, and therefore did not perjure herself in response to those questions.\n\nAccordingly, the Materials and the prior statements of the witnesses to whom they pertain are exculpatory evidence inconsistent with the government's theory of the charges in the Indictment and must be disclosed pursuant to the government's Brady obligations.\n\n2. The Government Has Not Shown Good Cause that Disclosure of the Materials Will Interfere with an Ongoing Investigation\n\nEven if the Court does not find this evidence to be exculpatory, the Materials are \"material to preparing the defense\" and therefore should be disclosed under Rule 16(a)(1)(E). The government agrees that the Materials should be produced, but asserts that there is good cause to delay the production of the Materials until eight weeks before trial, pursuant to Rule 16(d). (Dkt. 60 at 2-3). The government's justification for the delay, however, is entirely inadequate to establish good cause.\n\nThe government asserts that disclosing the Materials will prematurely reveal to the defense the identities of certain victims of Epstein who are not referenced in the Indictment, as well as\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001798",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 64 Filed 10/14/20 Page 4 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nOctober 14, 2020\nPage 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For example, Count Five alleges that Ms. Maxwell lied in the following exchange:\n\nQ: Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages? If you know.\n\nA: I don't know what you're talking about.\n\nSimilarly, Count Six alleges that Ms. Maxwell lied in the following exchange:\n\nQ: Other than yourself . . . with whom did Mr. Epstein have sexual activities?\n\nA: I wasn't aware that he was having sexual activities with anyone when I was with him other than myself.\n\nQ: I want to make sure that I'm clear. Is it your testimony that in the 1990s and 2000s, you were not aware that Ms. Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than yourself . . .?\n\nA: That is my testimony, that is correct.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government has spoken to numerous individuals who claim to have been assaulted by Epstein after 1997, but do not implicate Ms. Maxwell in the assault or claim that she knew about it in any way. That bolsters Ms. Maxwell's defense that she was not aware of either Epstein's scheme to recruit and sexually abuse underage girls, or that Epstein was engaging in sexual activities with others, and therefore did not perjure herself in response to those questions.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Accordingly, the Materials and the prior statements of the witnesses to whom they pertain are exculpatory evidence inconsistent with the government's theory of the charges in the Indictment and must be disclosed pursuant to the government's Brady obligations.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. The Government Has Not Shown Good Cause that Disclosure of the Materials Will Interfere with an Ongoing Investigation",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even if the Court does not find this evidence to be exculpatory, the Materials are \"material to preparing the defense\" and therefore should be disclosed under Rule 16(a)(1)(E). The government agrees that the Materials should be produced, but asserts that there is good cause to delay the production of the Materials until eight weeks before trial, pursuant to Rule 16(d). (Dkt. 60 at 2-3). The government's justification for the delay, however, is entirely inadequate to establish good cause.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government asserts that disclosing the Materials will prematurely reveal to the defense the identities of certain victims of Epstein who are not referenced in the Indictment, as well as",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001798",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "October 14, 2020",
      "1990s",
      "2000s",
      "1997"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 64",
      "Dkt. 60",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001798"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ms. Maxwell, with discussions about evidence and witness testimony. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}