{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "320",
    "date": "August 18, 2021",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 320 Filed 08/18/21 Page 2 of 4\nHonorable Alison J. Nathan\nAugust 18, 2021\nPage 2\nThe Government will produce Jencks Act material and its proposed exhibit list substantially in advance of trial, and respectfully submits that nothing more is required in this regard. Although it is not required to do so, the Government can state that—as of the date of this letter, and although the Government may change its view as it prepares for trial—it currently intends to introduce co-conspirator statements at trial from only two individuals, both of whom are specified in the S2 Indictment: Jeffrey Epstein and the employee of Epstein’s referenced in paragraph 25(d) of the S2 Indictment. There is accordingly no significant risk that the defense will be surprised at trial by a profusion of co-conspirators and their statements, even if the Government identifies statements for use at trial from additional co-conspirators.\nIn any event, there is no basis to require the Government to provide a bill of particulars containing an exhaustive list of unnamed co-conspirators. This Court has twice concluded that no bill of particulars is warranted because the defendant has adequate information to prepare for trial and avoid unfair surprise. (Dkt. No. 207 at 19-21; Dkt. No. 317 at 11-12). The same analysis applies to the defendant’s request that the Government identify her unnamed co-conspirators. See United States v. Murgio, 209 F. Supp. 3d 698, 721 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“[C]ourts in this circuit frequently exercise their discretion to deny requests to identify co-conspirators through a bill of particulars.”). The S2 Indictment already contains “more details than those strictly required.” (Dkt. No. 207 at 20 (discussing the S1 Indictment)). The Government has provided the defendant with extensive discovery that she has largely had in her possession for months, and it will provide\ninvolved orders granting bills of particulars requiring the Government to provide a list of all alleged coconspirators,” and the Government had separately opposed the defense supplemental motion for a bill of particulars. (Id. at 5). In that motion, the defense requested the identities of co-conspirators in Count Five as part of its motion for a bill of particulars. (Dkt. No. 293 at 24). The Government opposed that motion, albeit without specific reference to the identities of co-conspirators. (Dkt. No. 295 at 17-20). The Government regrets any confusion on this point.\nDOJ-OGR-00004995",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 320 Filed 08/18/21 Page 2 of 4\nHonorable Alison J. Nathan\nAugust 18, 2021\nPage 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government will produce Jencks Act material and its proposed exhibit list substantially in advance of trial, and respectfully submits that nothing more is required in this regard. Although it is not required to do so, the Government can state that—as of the date of this letter, and although the Government may change its view as it prepares for trial—it currently intends to introduce co-conspirator statements at trial from only two individuals, both of whom are specified in the S2 Indictment: Jeffrey Epstein and the employee of Epstein’s referenced in paragraph 25(d) of the S2 Indictment. There is accordingly no significant risk that the defense will be surprised at trial by a profusion of co-conspirators and their statements, even if the Government identifies statements for use at trial from additional co-conspirators.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In any event, there is no basis to require the Government to provide a bill of particulars containing an exhaustive list of unnamed co-conspirators. This Court has twice concluded that no bill of particulars is warranted because the defendant has adequate information to prepare for trial and avoid unfair surprise. (Dkt. No. 207 at 19-21; Dkt. No. 317 at 11-12). The same analysis applies to the defendant’s request that the Government identify her unnamed co-conspirators. See United States v. Murgio, 209 F. Supp. 3d 698, 721 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“[C]ourts in this circuit frequently exercise their discretion to deny requests to identify co-conspirators through a bill of particulars.”). The S2 Indictment already contains “more details than those strictly required.” (Dkt. No. 207 at 20 (discussing the S1 Indictment)). The Government has provided the defendant with extensive discovery that she has largely had in her possession for months, and it will provide",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "involved orders granting bills of particulars requiring the Government to provide a list of all alleged coconspirators,” and the Government had separately opposed the defense supplemental motion for a bill of particulars. (Id. at 5). In that motion, the defense requested the identities of co-conspirators in Count Five as part of its motion for a bill of particulars. (Dkt. No. 293 at 24). The Government opposed that motion, albeit without specific reference to the identities of co-conspirators. (Dkt. No. 295 at 17-20). The Government regrets any confusion on this point.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004995",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "August 18, 2021",
      "2016"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 320",
      "Dkt. No. 207",
      "Dkt. No. 317",
      "Dkt. No. 293",
      "Dkt. No. 295",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004995"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}