{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "45",
    "document_number": "398",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 398 Filed 10/29/21 Page 45 of 52\n\nargument are flawed, and the Court should enter the order proposed by Ms. Maxwell that all parties, witnesses, and the Court should refer to the individuals by their proper names.\n\nFirst, overlooking the frequency with which state courts must grapple with fair trials inherent in sex crimes, the government complains that the defendant cited no federal authority for the proposition that the Court, witnesses, and parties should use the individuals' names rather than the word \"victim.\" To remedy that perceived problem, counsel refers the Court to United States v. Sena, No. 19-CR-01432, 2021 WL 4129247, at *1-2 (D.N.M. Sept. 9, 2021), and the other cases cited therein:\n\n\"[Defendant] is correct that the term [victim] is prejudicial when the core issue at trial is whether a crime has been committed - and, therefore, whether there is a victim. See State v. Cortes, 851 A.2d 1230, 1239-40 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004), aff'd, 885 A.2d 153 (Conn. 2005) (holding that jury charges using the term \"victim\" instead of \"alleged victim\" violated a defendant's due process right to a fair trial); Talkington v. State, 682 S.W.2d 674, 674 (Tex. App. 1984) (use of the term \"victim\" in court's rape charge was reversible error when the issue at trial was whether complainant consented to sexual intercourse); People v. Davis, 423 N.Y.S.2d 229, 230 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979) (\"By referring in its charge to the complainant as the 'victim' and to the defendant as the 'perpetrator', the court impermissibly insinuated to the jury that the complainant was the victim of injuries resulting from acts committed by the defendant.\").\n\nAt [the] upcoming trial, the jury has the responsibility of deciding whether a crime occurred and whether that crime resulted in harm to [the accuser]. Thus, to label [the accuser] as a victim at the outset of trial carries the risk of improperly influencing the jury's decision. Moreover, there is virtually no probative value in allowing the government to use the term \"victim\" to describe [the accuser]. See United States v. Ehrens, No. CR-15-200-C, 2015 WL 7758544, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 1, 2015) (considering a similar motion and finding that there was \"no need by any party to refer to [the alleged victim] by any particular descriptor other than her name\"). Restricting the use of the term \"victim\" does not prevent the government from describing [the accuser]'s injuries, or from presenting any of its other evidence. The government and its witnesses remain free to refer to [the accuser] by name or by other descriptive terms (e.g., \"the mail carrier\").\n\nId. (emphasis added).\n\nAs argued in the motion, when the government, the Court, or another witness uses the term \"victim\" at the outset of the trial, it risks the jury pre-judging the merits, improperly\n\n39\n\nDOJ-OGR-00006000",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 398 Filed 10/29/21 Page 45 of 52",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "argument are flawed, and the Court should enter the order proposed by Ms. Maxwell that all parties, witnesses, and the Court should refer to the individuals by their proper names.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, overlooking the frequency with which state courts must grapple with fair trials inherent in sex crimes, the government complains that the defendant cited no federal authority for the proposition that the Court, witnesses, and parties should use the individuals' names rather than the word \"victim.\" To remedy that perceived problem, counsel refers the Court to United States v. Sena, No. 19-CR-01432, 2021 WL 4129247, at *1-2 (D.N.M. Sept. 9, 2021), and the other cases cited therein:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"[Defendant] is correct that the term [victim] is prejudicial when the core issue at trial is whether a crime has been committed - and, therefore, whether there is a victim. See State v. Cortes, 851 A.2d 1230, 1239-40 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004), aff'd, 885 A.2d 153 (Conn. 2005) (holding that jury charges using the term \"victim\" instead of \"alleged victim\" violated a defendant's due process right to a fair trial); Talkington v. State, 682 S.W.2d 674, 674 (Tex. App. 1984) (use of the term \"victim\" in court's rape charge was reversible error when the issue at trial was whether complainant consented to sexual intercourse); People v. Davis, 423 N.Y.S.2d 229, 230 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979) (\"By referring in its charge to the complainant as the 'victim' and to the defendant as the 'perpetrator', the court impermissibly insinuated to the jury that the complainant was the victim of injuries resulting from acts committed by the defendant.\").",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "At [the] upcoming trial, the jury has the responsibility of deciding whether a crime occurred and whether that crime resulted in harm to [the accuser]. Thus, to label [the accuser] as a victim at the outset of trial carries the risk of improperly influencing the jury's decision. Moreover, there is virtually no probative value in allowing the government to use the term \"victim\" to describe [the accuser]. See United States v. Ehrens, No. CR-15-200-C, 2015 WL 7758544, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 1, 2015) (considering a similar motion and finding that there was \"no need by any party to refer to [the alleged victim] by any particular descriptor other than her name\"). Restricting the use of the term \"victim\" does not prevent the government from describing [the accuser]'s injuries, or from presenting any of its other evidence. The government and its witnesses remain free to refer to [the accuser] by name or by other descriptive terms (e.g., \"the mail carrier\").",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. (emphasis added).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As argued in the motion, when the government, the Court, or another witness uses the term \"victim\" at the outset of the trial, it risks the jury pre-judging the merits, improperly",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "39",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006000",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "D.N.M.",
      "Conn.",
      "Tex.",
      "N.Y.",
      "W.D. Okla."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "Sept. 9, 2021",
      "Dec. 1, 2015"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 398",
      "No. 19-CR-01432",
      "2021 WL 4129247",
      "No. CR-15-200-C",
      "2015 WL 7758544",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006000"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}