{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "224",
    "date": "04/20/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 224 Filed 04/20/21 Page 10 of 17\nguilt or should be so incredible that its very implausibility suggests that it was created to conceal guilt.\" United States v. Littlefield, 840 F.2d 143, 149 (1st Cir. 1988) (internal citations and quotations omitted). That is not the case here. Moreover, the government cites no case where a purportedly false response in an unrelated civil deposition was admissible as a false exculpatory statement in a criminal case. Accordingly, the Perjury Counts should be severed and tried separately.3\n\nII. The Perjury Counts Must Be Severed to Prevent the Introduction of Improper, Highly Prejudicial, and Inadmissible Evidence.\nFederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a), captioned \"Relief from Prejudicial Joinder,\" confers upon a trial court the discretion to sever even properly joined counts if \"justice requires.\" The rule provides, in pertinent part: \"If the joinder of offenses . . . in an indictment . . . appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may order separate trials of counts . . . or provide any other relief that justice requires.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a).\nThere can be little doubt that if the Perjury Counts are not severed, Ms. Maxwell will suffer substantial prejudice. The government's proof of the Mann Act Counts will come almost exclusively from the testimony of the three accusers, with little or no independent documentary corroboration. Adding the Perjury Counts, which involve allegations of sexual abuse by another alleged victim that are unrelated to the charged crimes, will create a significant risk that the jury will impermissibly use the evidence introduced in connection with the Perjury Counts \"to infer a criminal disposition\" on the part of Ms. Maxwell to commit the Mann Act violations, or might\n3 It is highly unlikely that two trials would occur in this matter. Should the case proceed to trial on Counts 1-4, only, a conviction would expose Ms. Maxwell to a significant term of imprisonment. Under the sentencing guidelines, the Court would be permitted to consider any severed perjury counts under a number of theories including [grouping] or 21 U.S.C. § 3553(a). No second trial would be necessary. If Ms. Maxwell were acquitted, issue-preclusion would bar any second trial. See Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110, 121-122 (2009).\n6\nDOJ-OGR-00003907",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 224 Filed 04/20/21 Page 10 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "guilt or should be so incredible that its very implausibility suggests that it was created to conceal guilt.\" United States v. Littlefield, 840 F.2d 143, 149 (1st Cir. 1988) (internal citations and quotations omitted). That is not the case here. Moreover, the government cites no case where a purportedly false response in an unrelated civil deposition was admissible as a false exculpatory statement in a criminal case. Accordingly, the Perjury Counts should be severed and tried separately.3",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. The Perjury Counts Must Be Severed to Prevent the Introduction of Improper, Highly Prejudicial, and Inadmissible Evidence.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14(a), captioned \"Relief from Prejudicial Joinder,\" confers upon a trial court the discretion to sever even properly joined counts if \"justice requires.\" The rule provides, in pertinent part: \"If the joinder of offenses . . . in an indictment . . . appears to prejudice a defendant or the government, the court may order separate trials of counts . . . or provide any other relief that justice requires.\" Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "There can be little doubt that if the Perjury Counts are not severed, Ms. Maxwell will suffer substantial prejudice. The government's proof of the Mann Act Counts will come almost exclusively from the testimony of the three accusers, with little or no independent documentary corroboration. Adding the Perjury Counts, which involve allegations of sexual abuse by another alleged victim that are unrelated to the charged crimes, will create a significant risk that the jury will impermissibly use the evidence introduced in connection with the Perjury Counts \"to infer a criminal disposition\" on the part of Ms. Maxwell to commit the Mann Act violations, or might",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3 It is highly unlikely that two trials would occur in this matter. Should the case proceed to trial on Counts 1-4, only, a conviction would expose Ms. Maxwell to a significant term of imprisonment. Under the sentencing guidelines, the Court would be permitted to consider any severed perjury counts under a number of theories including [grouping] or 21 U.S.C. § 3553(a). No second trial would be necessary. If Ms. Maxwell were acquitted, issue-preclusion would bar any second trial. See Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110, 121-122 (2009).",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003907",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/20/21",
      "2009"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 224",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003907",
      "840 F.2d 143",
      "557 U.S. 110",
      "21 U.S.C. § 3553(a)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, discussing the severance of perjury counts from the main trial. The text is well-formatted and mostly clear, with some legal jargon and citations to case law."
}