{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "37",
    "document_number": "398",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 398 Filed 10/29/21 Page 37 of 52\njury. Resp. at 53-54. Apparently, the government believes the jury would be \"confused\" if the Court told the jurors what the law actually is so that they do not improperly assume that testimony is being offered as proof of \"criminal sexual activity\" and apply it incorrectly to convict Ms. Maxwell of the Mann Act conspiracies. The jurors would not be \"confused\"; they would be educated on how to properly evaluate evidence. The government's objection is non-sensical. But not as non-sensical as the government's final proclamation:\nThe sexual activity involving Minor Victim-3 can be considered criminal for purposes of the crimes charged in the Indictment, because it is probative proof of the defendant's guilt of those crimes. The instruction the defense proposes, in contrast, creates serious risk that the jury will think the Court is telling them that the conduct is lawful and therefore irrelevant to the case.\nId. at 54. A better example of circular reasoning you could not find - sex acts with Epstein are \"criminal\" because they are \"proof of the defendant's guilt of those crimes\"? No. And the \"risk that the jury will think that ... the conduct is lawful? It was lawful.\nWhatever misgivings may now have about those alleged sex acts, and whether she now views those incidents as \"sexual abuse,\" there was nothing illegal about them.\nAnd that is precisely the point. If she is permitted will testify about feeling sexually abused by Epstein and the jury will assume that the sex acts were illegal. Unless the Court instructs the jury that the sex acts were not illegal under U.K. law, and they cannot be considered as \"criminal sexual conduct\" in evaluating the elements of the Mann Act conspiracies, there is a substantial risk that the jury will misapply her evidence and improperly convict Ms. Maxwell of those counts. The government has agreed to do this in similar cases and it is appropriate to do so here. See Vickers, 708 F. App'x at 735-36 (government sought and received jury instructions explaining the applicable criminal laws of the relevant jurisdictions and jury returned a special verdict form finding \"that the defendant intended to engage in sexual",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 398 Filed 10/29/21 Page 37 of 52",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "jury. Resp. at 53-54. Apparently, the government believes the jury would be \"confused\" if the Court told the jurors what the law actually is so that they do not improperly assume that testimony is being offered as proof of \"criminal sexual activity\" and apply it incorrectly to convict Ms. Maxwell of the Mann Act conspiracies. The jurors would not be \"confused\"; they would be educated on how to properly evaluate evidence. The government's objection is non-sensical. But not as non-sensical as the government's final proclamation:",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The sexual activity involving Minor Victim-3 can be considered criminal for purposes of the crimes charged in the Indictment, because it is probative proof of the defendant's guilt of those crimes. The instruction the defense proposes, in contrast, creates serious risk that the jury will think the Court is telling them that the conduct is lawful and therefore irrelevant to the case.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. at 54. A better example of circular reasoning you could not find - sex acts with Epstein are \"criminal\" because they are \"proof of the defendant's guilt of those crimes\"? No. And the \"risk that the jury will think that ... the conduct is lawful? It was lawful.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Whatever misgivings may now have about those alleged sex acts, and whether she now views those incidents as \"sexual abuse,\" there was nothing illegal about them.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "And that is precisely the point. If she is permitted will testify about feeling sexually abused by Epstein and the jury will assume that the sex acts were illegal. Unless the Court instructs the jury that the sex acts were not illegal under U.K. law, and they cannot be considered as \"criminal sexual conduct\" in evaluating the elements of the Mann Act conspiracies, there is a substantial risk that the jury will misapply her evidence and improperly convict Ms. Maxwell of those counts. The government has agreed to do this in similar cases and it is appropriate to do so here. See Vickers, 708 F. App'x at 735-36 (government sought and received jury instructions explaining the applicable criminal laws of the relevant jurisdictions and jury returned a special verdict form finding \"that the defendant intended to engage in sexual",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Minor Victim-3"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "U.K."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 398",
      "708 F. App'x at 735-36"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, with redactions throughout the text. The content discusses legal arguments and jury instructions regarding the Mann Act conspiracies and the legality of certain sexual activities under U.K. law."
}