{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "74 of 93",
    "document_number": "410-1",
    "date": "11/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 410-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 74 of 93 Time of Offense You will note that the indictment charges that the crimes were committed on or about certain dates. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell committed the crimes reasonably near those dates. The Indictment alleges that certain conduct occurred on or about various dates or during various time periods. It is not necessary, however, for the Government to prove that any conduct alleged occurred exactly on such dates or throughout any such time periods. As long as the conduct occurred around any dates or within any time periods the Indictment alleges it occurred, that is sufficient. This is also a good opportunity to instruct you that it does not matter if a specific event or transaction is alleged to have occurred on or about a certain date, and the evidence indicates that in fact it occurred on another date. The law only requires a substantial similarity between the dates alleged in the Indictment and the dates established by the testimony and other evidence. Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. Lebedev, 15 Cr. 760 (AJN); the charge of the Hon. Kimba M. Wood in United States v. Almonte, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW); and the charge of the Hon. P. Kevin Castel in United States v. William Walters, 16 Cr. 338 (PKC). Commented [CE91]: This language is simpler and more to the point Adapted from the Tenth Circuit's pattern criminal jury instructions, 1:18 Commented [RA(R)92R91]: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This language from out of circuit refers to the dates the \"crimes\" were committed, while the Government's proposal makes clear that the Government is not strictly bound to the date of any act in the Indictment See, e.g., United States v. Pizzarro, 17 Cr 151 (AJN) (\"It does not matter if the evidence you heard at trial indicates that a particular act occurred on a different date.\") It also removes the law of the Circuit - that the dates must be \"substantially similar\" - and replaces it with a \"reasonably near\" standard See, e.g., United States v. Ortiz, 666 F Supp 2d 399, 404 (S D N Y 2009) (Chin, J) (\"In the Second Circuit, in general, an indictment date needs to be substantially similar to the date established at trial \" (internal quotation marks omitted)) A jury might understand those differently, and so the instruction is improper DOJ-OGR-00006140",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 410-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 74 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Time of Offense",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "You will note that the indictment charges that the crimes were committed on or about certain dates. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell committed the crimes reasonably near those dates.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Indictment alleges that certain conduct occurred on or about various dates or during various time periods. It is not necessary, however, for the Government to prove that any conduct alleged occurred exactly on such dates or throughout any such time periods. As long as the conduct occurred around any dates or within any time periods the Indictment alleges it occurred, that is sufficient.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This is also a good opportunity to instruct you that it does not matter if a specific event or transaction is alleged to have occurred on or about a certain date, and the evidence indicates that in fact it occurred on another date. The law only requires a substantial similarity between the dates alleged in the Indictment and the dates established by the testimony and other evidence.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. Lebedev, 15 Cr. 760 (AJN); the charge of the Hon. Kimba M. Wood in United States v. Almonte, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW); and the charge of the Hon. P. Kevin Castel in United States v. William Walters, 16 Cr. 338 (PKC).",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [CE91]: This language is simpler and more to the point Adapted from the Tenth Circuit's pattern criminal jury instructions, 1:18",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [RA(R)92R91]: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This language from out of circuit refers to the dates the \"crimes\" were committed, while the Government's proposal makes clear that the Government is not strictly bound to the date of any act in the Indictment See, e.g., United States v. Pizzarro, 17 Cr 151 (AJN) (\"It does not matter if the evidence you heard at trial indicates that a particular act occurred on a different date.\") It also removes the law of the Circuit - that the dates must be \"substantially similar\" - and replaces it with a \"reasonably near\" standard See, e.g., United States v. Ortiz, 666 F Supp 2d 399, 404 (S D N Y 2009) (Chin, J) (\"In the Second Circuit, in general, an indictment date needs to be substantially similar to the date established at trial \" (internal quotation marks omitted)) A jury might understand those differently, and so the instruction is improper",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006140",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Kimba M. Wood",
      "P. Kevin Castel"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 410-1",
      "15 Cr. 760",
      "16 Cr. 670",
      "16 Cr. 338",
      "17 Cr 151"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with some handwritten comments in the margin. The document is page 74 of 93."
}