{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "16",
    "document_number": "120",
    "date": "01/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 120 Filed 01/25/21 Page 16 of 19\nlawyer in a deposition, and a legal opinion about what was “material” in the context of the civil proceeding. It is unclear how the Government intends to address these issues, however, a trial with the perjury counts will necessarily involve litigating a complicated defamation action within a criminal trial, making the trial of this case unnecessarily lengthy and confusing. By May, 2017, shortly before the civil defamation case was dismissed, the matter had generated over 900 docket entries. Approximately 50 substantive motions relating to the admissibility of expert testimony, deposition testimony, and the admissibility of evidence remained unresolved. Judge Sweet had yet to rule on evidentiary challenges to thousands of deposition questions and answers contained in dozens of bankers boxes wheeled into his courtroom on dollies. A trial involving the perjury counts may well involve revisiting all of these unresolved issues.\nInclusion of the Perjury Counts injects into this case the performance and credibility of Ms. Maxwell’s lawyers and may require Ms. Maxwell’s counsel of choice to testify. Presumably, this would result in disqualification of lawyers who have represented Ms. Maxwell for over five years from the entire trial, even though there is no reason why their testimony would be required in connection with the Mann Act Counts. See, Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7.\nSeverance is still appropriate even though the government alleges that some of the questions posed at the depositions related to some of the alleged victims in this case. Indictment ¶¶ 2, 8. Even if the government uses some minimal amount of overlapping evidence to prove both the Perjury Counts and the Mann Act Counts, the miniscule gain in efficiency of introducing proof is far outweighed be the much larger inefficiency of substantially lengthening and complicating the trial and by the risk of substantial prejudice to the defendant discussed above. See Burke, 789 F. Supp. 2d at 398 (severing witness tampering charges from RICO conspiracy charges in the interests of judicial economy, despite fact that government would have\n12\nDOJ-OGR-00002294",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 120 Filed 01/25/21 Page 16 of 19",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "lawyer in a deposition, and a legal opinion about what was “material” in the context of the civil proceeding. It is unclear how the Government intends to address these issues, however, a trial with the perjury counts will necessarily involve litigating a complicated defamation action within a criminal trial, making the trial of this case unnecessarily lengthy and confusing. By May, 2017, shortly before the civil defamation case was dismissed, the matter had generated over 900 docket entries. Approximately 50 substantive motions relating to the admissibility of expert testimony, deposition testimony, and the admissibility of evidence remained unresolved. Judge Sweet had yet to rule on evidentiary challenges to thousands of deposition questions and answers contained in dozens of bankers boxes wheeled into his courtroom on dollies. A trial involving the perjury counts may well involve revisiting all of these unresolved issues.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Inclusion of the Perjury Counts injects into this case the performance and credibility of Ms. Maxwell’s lawyers and may require Ms. Maxwell’s counsel of choice to testify. Presumably, this would result in disqualification of lawyers who have represented Ms. Maxwell for over five years from the entire trial, even though there is no reason why their testimony would be required in connection with the Mann Act Counts. See, Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Severance is still appropriate even though the government alleges that some of the questions posed at the depositions related to some of the alleged victims in this case. Indictment ¶¶ 2, 8. Even if the government uses some minimal amount of overlapping evidence to prove both the Perjury Counts and the Mann Act Counts, the miniscule gain in efficiency of introducing proof is far outweighed be the much larger inefficiency of substantially lengthening and complicating the trial and by the risk of substantial prejudice to the defendant discussed above. See Burke, 789 F. Supp. 2d at 398 (severing witness tampering charges from RICO conspiracy charges in the interests of judicial economy, despite fact that government would have",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "12",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002294",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge Sweet",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Burke"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "May, 2017",
      "01/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 120",
      "789 F. Supp. 2d at 398",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002294"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the potential issues with including perjury counts in the trial and the need for severance. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}