{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "85 of 91",
    "document_number": "93",
    "date": "12/10/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 93 Filed 12/10/20 Page 85 of 91\n\n1 significant argument by the defense and it is a relevant\n2 consideration, but the court does not give it controlling\n3 weight here.\n4\n5 To begin, in spite of the Epstein prosecution,\n6 Ms. Maxwell herself may have expected to avoid prosecution.\n7 After all, she was not named in the original indictment. The\n8 case was therefore distinguishable from United States v.\n9 Friedman, 837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988), a case where release was\n10 ordered in part because the defendant took no steps to flee\n11 after a search warrant was executed against the defendant and\n12 he had been arrested on state charges several weeks earlier.\n13\n14 Likewise, the mere fact that she stayed in contact\n15 with the government means little if that was an effort to stave\n16 off indictment and she did not provide the government with her\n17 whereabouts. Circumstances of her arrest, as discussed, may\n18 cast some doubt on the claim that she was not hiding from the\n19 government, a claim that she makes throughout the papers and\n20 here today, but even if true, the reality that Ms. Maxwell may\n21 face such serious charges herself may not have set in until\n22 after she was actually indicted.\n23\n24 Moreover, Ms. Maxwell's argument rests on a\n25 speculative premise that prior to indictment Ms. Maxwell had as\n26 clear an understanding as she does now of the serious nature of\n27 the charges, the potential sentence she may face, and the\n28 strength of the government's case. Whatever calculation and\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00001962",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 93 Filed 12/10/20 Page 85 of 91",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 significant argument by the defense and it is a relevant\n2 consideration, but the court does not give it controlling\n3 weight here.\n4\n5 To begin, in spite of the Epstein prosecution,\n6 Ms. Maxwell herself may have expected to avoid prosecution.\n7 After all, she was not named in the original indictment. The\n8 case was therefore distinguishable from United States v.\n9 Friedman, 837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988), a case where release was\n10 ordered in part because the defendant took no steps to flee\n11 after a search warrant was executed against the defendant and\n12 he had been arrested on state charges several weeks earlier.\n13\n14 Likewise, the mere fact that she stayed in contact\n15 with the government means little if that was an effort to stave\n16 off indictment and she did not provide the government with her\n17 whereabouts. Circumstances of her arrest, as discussed, may\n18 cast some doubt on the claim that she was not hiding from the\n19 government, a claim that she makes throughout the papers and\n20 here today, but even if true, the reality that Ms. Maxwell may\n21 face such serious charges herself may not have set in until\n22 after she was actually indicted.\n23\n24 Moreover, Ms. Maxwell's argument rests on a\n25 speculative premise that prior to indictment Ms. Maxwell had as\n26 clear an understanding as she does now of the serious nature of\n27 the charges, the potential sentence she may face, and the\n28 strength of the government's case. Whatever calculation and",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001962",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "12/10/20",
      "1988"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 93",
      "837 F.2d 48",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001962"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is typed and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document includes a reference to a specific court case and a reporter's information at the bottom."
}