{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "73",
    "document_number": "410-1",
    "date": "11/04/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": true,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 410-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 73 of 93\n\nOn the issue of venue—and this alone—the Government need not prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt, but only by a mere preponderance of the evidence. A “preponderance of the evidence” means more likely than not. Thus, the Government, which does bear the burden of proving venue, has satisfied that burden as to venue if you conclude that it is more likely than not that some act or communication in furtherance of each charged offense occurred in the Southern District of New York—and it was reasonably foreseeable to Ms. Maxwell each Defendant that the act would so occur. If, on the other hand, you find that the Government has failed to prove the venue requirement as to a particular offense, then you must acquit Ms. Maxwell the Defendant of that offense, even if all the other elements of the offense are proven.\n\nAdapted from Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instr. 3-11; the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. Lebedev, 15 Cr. 769 (AJN); the charge of the Hon. Denise L. Cote in United States v. Purcell, 18 Cr. 081 (DLC); and the charge of the Hon. P. Kevin Castel in United States v. William Walters, 16 Cr. 338 (PKC). See also United States v. Khalupsky, 5 F.4th 279 (2d Cir. 2021) (“The government bears the burden of proving appropriate venue on each count, as to each defendant, by a preponderance of the evidence.”).\n\nCommented [RA(89R88]: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Court has used this language in United States v. Lebedev, 15 Cr 769 (AJN) It will help the jury understand what “any act in furtherance of the unlawful activity” means in the context of the conspiracy and substantive counts\n\nCommented [CE90]: Same objection as above\n\n73\n\nDOJ-OGR-00006139",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 410-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 73 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "On the issue of venue—and this alone—the Government need not prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt, but only by a mere preponderance of the evidence. A “preponderance of the evidence” means more likely than not. Thus, the Government, which does bear the burden of proving venue, has satisfied that burden as to venue if you conclude that it is more likely than not that some act or communication in furtherance of each charged offense occurred in the Southern District of New York—and it was reasonably foreseeable to Ms. Maxwell each Defendant that the act would so occur. If, on the other hand, you find that the Government has failed to prove the venue requirement as to a particular offense, then you must acquit Ms. Maxwell the Defendant of that offense, even if all the other elements of the offense are proven.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Adapted from Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instr. 3-11; the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. Lebedev, 15 Cr. 769 (AJN); the charge of the Hon. Denise L. Cote in United States v. Purcell, 18 Cr. 081 (DLC); and the charge of the Hon. P. Kevin Castel in United States v. William Walters, 16 Cr. 338 (PKC). See also United States v. Khalupsky, 5 F.4th 279 (2d Cir. 2021) (“The government bears the burden of proving appropriate venue on each count, as to each defendant, by a preponderance of the evidence.”).",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [RA(89R88]: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Court has used this language in United States v. Lebedev, 15 Cr 769 (AJN) It will help the jury understand what “any act in furtherance of the unlawful activity” means in the context of the conspiracy and substantive counts",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [CE90]: Same objection as above",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "73",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006139",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Denise L. Cote",
      "P. Kevin Castel",
      "William Walters",
      "Khalupsky"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "410-1",
      "15 Cr. 769",
      "18 Cr. 081",
      "16 Cr. 338",
      "5 F.4th 279",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006139"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with handwritten comments in the margin. The text is mostly printed, with some handwritten annotations. The document is related to a court case involving Ms. Maxwell."
}