{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "207",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 2 of 34\nrelated to the newly added sex trafficking charges. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Maxwell's motions to dismiss the S1 superseding indictment in whole or in part. It grants her motion to sever the perjury charges for a separate trial. It denies her motion to further expedite discovery.\nThe Court provides a brief summary of its conclusions here and its reasoning on the pages that follow:\n- Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts based on a non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. The Court concludes that the agreement does not apply in this District or to the charged offenses.\n- Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts as untimely. The Court concludes that the Government brought the charges within the statute of limitations and did not unfairly delay in bringing them.\n- Maxwell moves to dismiss the Mann Act counts because they are too vague, or in the alternative to require the Government to describe the charges in greater detail. The Court concludes that the charges are specific enough.\n- Maxwell moves to dismiss the perjury counts because, in her view, her testimony responded to ambiguous questioning and was not material. The Court concludes that these issues are best left for the jury.\n- Maxwell moves to sever the perjury counts from the Mann Act counts so that they can proceed in a separate trial. The Court concludes that severance is appropriate and will try the perjury counts separately.\n- Maxwell moves to strike language from the indictment that she believes is superfluous and to dismiss conspiracy counts she believes are redundant. The Court concludes that these motions are premature before trial.\n- Maxwell moves to compel the Government to immediately disclose certain categories of evidence. The Court concludes that she is not entitled to do so, but the Court will order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule.\n- Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in White Plains, rather than Manhattan, returned the S1 superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion appears moot.\n2\nDOJ-OGR-00003676",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 2 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "related to the newly added sex trafficking charges. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Maxwell's motions to dismiss the S1 superseding indictment in whole or in part. It grants her motion to sever the perjury charges for a separate trial. It denies her motion to further expedite discovery.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court provides a brief summary of its conclusions here and its reasoning on the pages that follow:",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "- Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts based on a non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. The Court concludes that the agreement does not apply in this District or to the charged offenses.\n- Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts as untimely. The Court concludes that the Government brought the charges within the statute of limitations and did not unfairly delay in bringing them.\n- Maxwell moves to dismiss the Mann Act counts because they are too vague, or in the alternative to require the Government to describe the charges in greater detail. The Court concludes that the charges are specific enough.\n- Maxwell moves to dismiss the perjury counts because, in her view, her testimony responded to ambiguous questioning and was not material. The Court concludes that these issues are best left for the jury.\n- Maxwell moves to sever the perjury counts from the Mann Act counts so that they can proceed in a separate trial. The Court concludes that severance is appropriate and will try the perjury counts separately.\n- Maxwell moves to strike language from the indictment that she believes is superfluous and to dismiss conspiracy counts she believes are redundant. The Court concludes that these motions are premature before trial.\n- Maxwell moves to compel the Government to immediately disclose certain categories of evidence. The Court concludes that she is not entitled to do so, but the Court will order Maxwell and the Government to confer on a discovery schedule.\n- Maxwell moves to dismiss all counts because a grand jury in White Plains, rather than Manhattan, returned the S1 superseding indictment. Because a jury in Manhattan returned the S2 superseding indictment, the motion appears moot.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003676",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of Florida",
      "White Plains",
      "Manhattan"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 207",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003676"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Maxwell. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
}