{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "30 of 52",
    "document_number": "453",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 453 Filed 11/12/21 Page 30 of 52\n\nThus currently it appears that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard. . . . Right now it does not appear to be the case that there are \"reliable principles and methods\" to define and detect grooming.\n\nId. at 19 (emphasis added).\n\nAt a minimum, therefore, this Court should hold a Daubert hearing.\n\nIV. THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED\n\nThe government's arguments in favor of admitting evidence related as direct evidence of the charged conspiracies all but concede that the evidence is more appropriately considered under Rule 404(b). In an effort to bolster their position, the government makes the sweeping assertion that as long as was under the age of 18, her evidence is admissible as direct evidence of the conspiracy. That is a fundamentally incorrect statement of the law and should be rejected. The government's arguments for admitting evidence under Rule 404(b) and for denying the defense's requested limiting instruction are similarly baseless. The Court should therefore exclude evidence related to or, if it is admitted, give the jury the requested limiting instruction.7\n\nThe government advances four principal arguments for why evidence related to should be admitted as direct evidence of the charged conspiracies: (1) her testimony allegedly shows a \"pattern\" of how Epstein and Ms. Maxwell sexually abused young women and establishes Ms. Maxwell's \"intent\" to participate in the charged conspiracies (Resp. at 45-46),\n\n(2) her allegations are included in the S2 Indictment and are therefore not covered by Rule\n\n7 As it pertains to and the other accusers, the defense will be submitting proposed jury instructions and special verdict findings.\n\n24\n\nDOJ-OGR-00006910",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 453 Filed 11/12/21 Page 30 of 52",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Thus currently it appears that grooming is not a construct that ought to be used in forensic settings as it does not meet some of the criteria in the Daubert standard. . . . Right now it does not appear to be the case that there are \"reliable principles and methods\" to define and detect grooming.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. at 19 (emphasis added).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "At a minimum, therefore, this Court should hold a Daubert hearing.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "IV. THE COURT SHOULD EXCLUDE EVIDENCE RELATED",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government's arguments in favor of admitting evidence related as direct evidence of the charged conspiracies all but concede that the evidence is more appropriately considered under Rule 404(b). In an effort to bolster their position, the government makes the sweeping assertion that as long as was under the age of 18, her evidence is admissible as direct evidence of the conspiracy. That is a fundamentally incorrect statement of the law and should be rejected. The government's arguments for admitting evidence under Rule 404(b) and for denying the defense's requested limiting instruction are similarly baseless. The Court should therefore exclude evidence related to or, if it is admitted, give the jury the requested limiting instruction.7",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government advances four principal arguments for why evidence related to should be admitted as direct evidence of the charged conspiracies: (1) her testimony allegedly shows a \"pattern\" of how Epstein and Ms. Maxwell sexually abused young women and establishes Ms. Maxwell's \"intent\" to participate in the charged conspiracies (Resp. at 45-46),",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(2) her allegations are included in the S2 Indictment and are therefore not covered by Rule",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7 As it pertains to and the other accusers, the defense will be submitting proposed jury instructions and special verdict findings.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "24",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006910",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 453",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006910"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the admissibility of certain evidence and the government's arguments in favor of admitting it. The document includes redactions, suggesting that some information has been withheld or obscured."
}