{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "43",
    "document_number": "439",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 43 of 69\n\ninconsistencies,\" revealed a \"remarkably uncritical attitude\" on the part of the police which \"undermined the ... integrity of the investigation\").\n\nMs. Maxwell cannot pursue this legitimate line of argument without eliciting evidence of the NPA, the government's decision not to charge her in the initial 2019 indictment, and the death of Epstein. Accordingly, evidence and argument related to these topics is highly relevant and admissible. See id. at 445-49; Bowen, 799 F.2d at 613; Lindsey, 769 F.2d at 1042. The probative value of this evidence is also not substantially outweighed by the danger of jury confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. The story of how the New York investigation progressed from its opening due to the Miami Herald articles that criticized the Florida Investigation and the NPA, to the indictment of Epstein in July 2019 and his death in August 2019, and finally to the indictment of Ms. Maxwell in June 2020 is simple and straightforward. The government has a dim view of the average juror's intelligence if it does not think the jury can follow that there were two separate investigations—one in Florida that ended in 2008 with the NPA, and one in New York that led to charges against Epstein in 2019 and Ms. Maxwell in 2020. See Mot. at 27-28. That is not hard to follow.22 Accordingly, this evidence should not be excluded because of an unfounded concern about juror confusion.23\n\n22 It is particularly hypocritical of the government to argue that a discussion of the various investigations would create an \"extensive side-show\" because the investigations \"reach[ ] back 20 years.\" Mot. at 27. If the government does not want a discussion about events that took place over 20 years ago, the solution is simple: don't charge a case where the alleged conduct is over 20 years old.\n\n23 The defense can also elicit this evidence without relying on hearsay. For example, the New York case agents could testify to the fact that Epstein alone was charged in the 2019 indictment, and the fact of his death, both of which are not hearsay. Moreover, we do not intend to ask the New York case agents why Ms. Maxwell was not charged in the 2019 indictment. It is premature, however, to litigate any hearsay issues at this stage. Those issues should await trial.\n\n35\nDOJ-OGR-00006460",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 43 of 69",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "inconsistencies,\" revealed a \"remarkably uncritical attitude\" on the part of the police which \"undermined the ... integrity of the investigation\").\n\nMs. Maxwell cannot pursue this legitimate line of argument without eliciting evidence of the NPA, the government's decision not to charge her in the initial 2019 indictment, and the death of Epstein. Accordingly, evidence and argument related to these topics is highly relevant and admissible. See id. at 445-49; Bowen, 799 F.2d at 613; Lindsey, 769 F.2d at 1042. The probative value of this evidence is also not substantially outweighed by the danger of jury confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. The story of how the New York investigation progressed from its opening due to the Miami Herald articles that criticized the Florida Investigation and the NPA, to the indictment of Epstein in July 2019 and his death in August 2019, and finally to the indictment of Ms. Maxwell in June 2020 is simple and straightforward. The government has a dim view of the average juror's intelligence if it does not think the jury can follow that there were two separate investigations—one in Florida that ended in 2008 with the NPA, and one in New York that led to charges against Epstein in 2019 and Ms. Maxwell in 2020. See Mot. at 27-28. That is not hard to follow.22 Accordingly, this evidence should not be excluded because of an unfounded concern about juror confusion.23",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "22 It is particularly hypocritical of the government to argue that a discussion of the various investigations would create an \"extensive side-show\" because the investigations \"reach[ ] back 20 years.\" Mot. at 27. If the government does not want a discussion about events that took place over 20 years ago, the solution is simple: don't charge a case where the alleged conduct is over 20 years old.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "23 The defense can also elicit this evidence without relying on hearsay. For example, the New York case agents could testify to the fact that Epstein alone was charged in the 2019 indictment, and the fact of his death, both of which are not hearsay. Moreover, we do not intend to ask the New York case agents why Ms. Maxwell was not charged in the 2019 indictment. It is premature, however, to litigate any hearsay issues at this stage. Those issues should await trial.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "35",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006460",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Miami Herald"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2019",
      "2020",
      "2008",
      "July 2019",
      "August 2019",
      "June 2020",
      "11/12/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 439",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006460"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, with references to legal precedents and evidence. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is from a legal proceeding and contains citations to legal cases and rules of evidence."
}