{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "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 15 of 19\njury would convict Ms. Maxwell on the Mann Act Counts based on a false inference of criminal propensity. Similarly, it would create a substantial risk that the jury will confuse the legal and factual issues pertinent to the Perjury Counts and convict Ms. Maxwell without independently considering those counts. See Ramos, 2009 WL 1619912, at *2 (severing “temporally distinct” drug counts involving a different controlled substance from other drug counts because of “the potential for jury confusion, or improper propensity inferences, with respect to the drug-related aspects of the original charges”).\nFurthermore, the government’s decision to allege violations only in the narrow 1994-1997 time period was deliberate—it did so, in part, to try to avoid the impact of Epstein’s 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”). In its opposition to Ms. Maxwell’s initial bail application, the government argued that the NPA did not protect Ms. Maxwell from prosecution principally because the Indictment did not charge conduct covered by the NPA, which the government argues “was limited by its terms to conduct spanning from 2001 to 2007, a time period that post-dates the conduct charged in the Indictment.” (Dkt. 22 at 5-6).2 The government now wants it both ways. It has confined the allegations in the Indictment to the earlier time frame to try to prevent a legal challenge that would result in the dismissal of the Mann Act Counts, but at the same time it seeks to introduce conduct from the later time period by joining the Perjury Counts. The government should not be permitted to do so.\nIn addition, joinder of the Perjury Counts would prejudice Ms. Maxwell because it could impact the ability of Ms. Maxwell’s counsel of choice to participate in the criminal trial. The Perjury Counts will involve complicated legal issues about permissible deposition questions, whether the answers to the poorly formulated questions would have been allowed, the role of a\n2 The defense disputes that the coverage of the NPA is so limited. See Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Breach of Non-Prosecution Agreement.\n11\nDOJ-OGR-00002293",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 120 Filed 01/25/21 Page 15 of 19",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "jury would convict Ms. Maxwell on the Mann Act Counts based on a false inference of criminal propensity. Similarly, it would create a substantial risk that the jury will confuse the legal and factual issues pertinent to the Perjury Counts and convict Ms. Maxwell without independently considering those counts. See Ramos, 2009 WL 1619912, at *2 (severing “temporally distinct” drug counts involving a different controlled substance from other drug counts because of “the potential for jury confusion, or improper propensity inferences, with respect to the drug-related aspects of the original charges”).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Furthermore, the government’s decision to allege violations only in the narrow 1994-1997 time period was deliberate—it did so, in part, to try to avoid the impact of Epstein’s 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”). In its opposition to Ms. Maxwell’s initial bail application, the government argued that the NPA did not protect Ms. Maxwell from prosecution principally because the Indictment did not charge conduct covered by the NPA, which the government argues “was limited by its terms to conduct spanning from 2001 to 2007, a time period that post-dates the conduct charged in the Indictment.” (Dkt. 22 at 5-6).2 The government now wants it both ways. It has confined the allegations in the Indictment to the earlier time frame to try to prevent a legal challenge that would result in the dismissal of the Mann Act Counts, but at the same time it seeks to introduce conduct from the later time period by joining the Perjury Counts. The government should not be permitted to do so.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In addition, joinder of the Perjury Counts would prejudice Ms. Maxwell because it could impact the ability of Ms. Maxwell’s counsel of choice to participate in the criminal trial. The Perjury Counts will involve complicated legal issues about permissible deposition questions, whether the answers to the poorly formulated questions would have been allowed, the role of a",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 The defense disputes that the coverage of the NPA is so limited. See Motion to Dismiss Indictment for Breach of Non-Prosecution Agreement.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002293",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "01/25/21",
      "1994",
      "1997",
      "2001",
      "2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 120",
      "Dkt. 22",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002293"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 15 of 19."
}