{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "45 of 54",
    "document_number": "380",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 380 Filed 10/29/21 Page 45 of 54\n\ntestimony by a case agent, is inadmissible hearsay. While the defendant has no burden to put on a defense case, she can only introduce this evidence by doing so.\n\nAccordingly, before the defendant—in opening or during trial—argues or offers evidence about the defendant’s absence when Epstein abused victims who are not part of the Government’s case-in-chief, the Court should require the defendant to explain the evidence she plans to offer and why such evidence would be admissible.\n\nVIII. The Court Should Not Permit the Defendant to Introduce Her Own Prior Statements\n\nThe Government has produced to the defendant many of her own statements, including primarily (1) statements contained in emails or other communications, and (2) statements from her own deposition. Some of the latter statements contain denials of portions of the offense conduct, for which the defendant is separately charged with perjury. (See Indictment ¶¶ 28-31).\n\nThe Court should not permit the defense to introduce these statements.\n\nA defendant may not offer her own statement into evidence without subjecting herself to cross-examination. “When the defendant seeks to introduce his own prior statement for the truth of the matter asserted, it is hearsay, and it is not admissible.” United States v. Marin, 669 F.2d 73, 84 (2d Cir. 1982); see also, e.g., United States v. Rea, 958 F.2d 1206, 1225 (2d Cir. 1992) (similar); United States v. Fernandez, 839 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (“[D]efense counsel wished to place [the defendant’s] statement . . . before the jury without subjecting [the defendant] to cross-examination, precisely what the hearsay rule forbids.”); United States v. Torres, 435 F. Supp. 3d 526, 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (“Finally, the Court agrees with the Government that, in the event evidence of his flight is admitted, Torres may not\n\n44\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005438",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 380 Filed 10/29/21 Page 45 of 54",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "testimony by a case agent, is inadmissible hearsay. While the defendant has no burden to put on a defense case, she can only introduce this evidence by doing so.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Accordingly, before the defendant—in opening or during trial—argues or offers evidence about the defendant’s absence when Epstein abused victims who are not part of the Government’s case-in-chief, the Court should require the defendant to explain the evidence she plans to offer and why such evidence would be admissible.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "VIII. The Court Should Not Permit the Defendant to Introduce Her Own Prior Statements",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government has produced to the defendant many of her own statements, including primarily (1) statements contained in emails or other communications, and (2) statements from her own deposition. Some of the latter statements contain denials of portions of the offense conduct, for which the defendant is separately charged with perjury. (See Indictment ¶¶ 28-31).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court should not permit the defense to introduce these statements.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A defendant may not offer her own statement into evidence without subjecting herself to cross-examination. “When the defendant seeks to introduce his own prior statement for the truth of the matter asserted, it is hearsay, and it is not admissible.” United States v. Marin, 669 F.2d 73, 84 (2d Cir. 1982); see also, e.g., United States v. Rea, 958 F.2d 1206, 1225 (2d Cir. 1992) (similar); United States v. Fernandez, 839 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (“[D]efense counsel wished to place [the defendant’s] statement . . . before the jury without subjecting [the defendant] to cross-examination, precisely what the hearsay rule forbids.”); United States v. Torres, 435 F. Supp. 3d 526, 538 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (“Finally, the Court agrees with the Government that, in the event evidence of his flight is admitted, Torres may not",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "44",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005438",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "1982",
      "1992",
      "1987",
      "2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 380",
      "Indictment ¶¶ 28-31",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005438"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is page 45 of 54."
}