{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "101",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 101 of 127\nLB1TMAX3\n\nargument that the Ms. Maxwell's photo looks like a mugshot and is different from the others doesn't persuade me here. Alleged Victim-4 identified at least one other photo in the array that she thought could be Ms. Maxwell but she ultimately chose Ms. Maxwell's photo, and there were several photos in the array that were of roughly the same quality and angle as Ms. Maxwell's photo.\n\nThe defense fails to identify any suggestive comments made during the identification that would deem the procedures unduly suggestive. The government appears to have asked whether the individual recognized anyone in the book. So I conclude the identification procedure was not unduly suggestive.\n\nEven assuming the photo array was unduly suggestive, the identification here had independent reliability factors I must consider under the totality of circumstances that include the opportunity of the witness to view the individual at the time of the alleged crime, the witness's degree of attention, the accuracy of the the witness's prior description of the individual, the level of uncertainty demonstrated, the length of time between the alleged crime and the confrontation. See, Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, (1972).\n\nHere, the alleged Victim-4 had the opportunity to view Ms. Maxwell. They interacted several times over the span of years. As the government points out, the alleged interactions\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00007152",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 101 of 127",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LB1TMAX3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "argument that the Ms. Maxwell's photo looks like a mugshot and is different from the others doesn't persuade me here. Alleged Victim-4 identified at least one other photo in the array that she thought could be Ms. Maxwell but she ultimately chose Ms. Maxwell's photo, and there were several photos in the array that were of roughly the same quality and angle as Ms. Maxwell's photo.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defense fails to identify any suggestive comments made during the identification that would deem the procedures unduly suggestive. The government appears to have asked whether the individual recognized anyone in the book. So I conclude the identification procedure was not unduly suggestive.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even assuming the photo array was unduly suggestive, the identification here had independent reliability factors I must consider under the totality of circumstances that include the opportunity of the witness to view the individual at the time of the alleged crime, the witness's degree of attention, the accuracy of the the witness's prior description of the individual, the level of uncertainty demonstrated, the length of time between the alleged crime and the confrontation. See, Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, (1972).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here, the alleged Victim-4 had the opportunity to view Ms. Maxwell. They interacted several times over the span of years. As the government points out, the alleged interactions",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007152",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Victim-4",
      "Neil"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21",
      "1972"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "409 U.S. 188",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007152"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is typed, and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document is from a court case involving Ms. Maxwell."
}