{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "73",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 73 of 239 omitted)). The defendant has not and cannot establish that Epstein would have been available to testify in the first instance, much less that he would have voluntarily agreed to testify at her trial in a way that would help, rather than hurt, the defendant. As to Epstein's mother, who died in April 2004, the defendant contends that she “would have testified that she did not observe Ms. Maxwell with any Accusers between 1994 and 1997.” (Def. Mot. 7 at 9). “Counsel's unsworn assertions as to vague generalities” that witnesses, “if alive, would give testimony helpful to [the defendant] do not show that [the defendant's] ability to present a defense has been substantially and actually prejudiced.” United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396, 399-400 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Here, “there is no evidence before the Court as to what [the deceased witness] would have testified, much less specific evidence of how losing that testimony has caused [the defendant] actual prejudice.” Id. at 400. Further, unless Epstein's mother was with the defendant “every moment” between 1994 and 1997, “it would be impossible for [her] to testify that [the] defendant did not commit the charged crimes, so whatever helpful testimony [she] might have offered (the details of which are sparse in the motion) would be easily undermined on cross-examination.” Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *4 (citing Spears, 159 F.3d at 1081-1085). Moreover, Epstein's mother died “sufficiently prior to 'any realistic trial date,' to make it improbable that any prejudice it may have caused [the defendant] was the result of government delay.” United States v. Cheung Kin Ping, 555 F.2d 1069, 1073 (2d Cir. 1977) (quoting United States v. Stein, 456 F.2d 844, 848 (2d Cir. 1972)). Indeed, Epstein's mother passed away before the Palm Beach Police Department even began investigating Epstein in 2005. (Def. Mot. 7, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 DOJ-OGR-00003007",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 73 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "omitted)). The defendant has not and cannot establish that Epstein would have been available to testify in the first instance, much less that he would have voluntarily agreed to testify at her trial in a way that would help, rather than hurt, the defendant. As to Epstein's mother, who died in April 2004, the defendant contends that she “would have testified that she did not observe Ms. Maxwell with any Accusers between 1994 and 1997.” (Def. Mot. 7 at 9). “Counsel's unsworn assertions as to vague generalities” that witnesses, “if alive, would give testimony helpful to [the defendant] do not show that [the defendant's] ability to present a defense has been substantially and actually prejudiced.” United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396, 399-400 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Here, “there is no evidence before the Court as to what [the deceased witness] would have testified, much less specific evidence of how losing that testimony has caused [the defendant] actual prejudice.” Id. at 400. Further, unless Epstein's mother was with the defendant “every moment” between 1994 and 1997, “it would be impossible for [her] to testify that [the] defendant did not commit the charged crimes, so whatever helpful testimony [she] might have offered (the details of which are sparse in the motion) would be easily undermined on cross-examination.” Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *4 (citing Spears, 159 F.3d at 1081-1085). Moreover, Epstein's mother died “sufficiently prior to 'any realistic trial date,' to make it improbable that any prejudice it may have caused [the defendant] was the result of government delay.” United States v. Cheung Kin Ping, 555 F.2d 1069, 1073 (2d Cir. 1977) (quoting United States v. Stein, 456 F.2d 844, 848 (2d Cir. 1972)). Indeed, Epstein's mother passed away before the Palm Beach Police Department even began investigating Epstein in 2005. (Def. Mot. 7, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "46",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003007",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Michael Casey",
      "Detective Recarey"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Palm Beach Police Department"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 2004",
      "1994",
      "1997",
      "August 2017",
      "May",
      "04/16/21",
      "2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}