{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "13",
    "document_number": "120",
    "date": "01/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 120 Filed 01/25/21 Page 13 of 19\n\n(Indictment ¶ 2; accord id. ¶ 8.) As discussed in Ms. Maxwell's Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six, because the statements at issue are not perjurious, the questions asked were confusing, ambiguous, and improperly formed. None of the questions, or any answers, were material to any issue in the defamation action. There were no “crimes” concealed by Ms. Maxwell's answers which were both true and reflective of the poor questioning by the plaintiff's lawyers. The Government does not articulate how statements like: “I don’t know what you are talking about,” an admission that Ms. Maxwell “could not make a list” upon demand, her lack of knowledge about undefined “devices” or “toys” could possibly “conceal her crimes.” Accordingly, the government’s purported connection between the Perjury Counts and the Mann Act Counts defies logic and is insufficient to permit joinder under Rule 8(a). See Botti, 2009 WL 3157582, at *5 (joinder improper due to “speculative nature of the link” between structuring counts alleging false statements to IRS agent and separate corruption counts); Mitan, 2009 WL 2328870, at *3 (joinder improper where alleged perjury arose from false statement in connection with defendant’s bail application, not an attempt to “cover up” underlying scheme to defraud with which defendant was charged).\n\nB. The Perjury Counts Should Be Severed Under Rule 14(a) Because Their Inclusion Will Substantially Prejudice Ms. Maxwell at Trial\n\nEven if the Court finds that joinder is proper under Rule 8, the Court should nevertheless exercise its discretion to sever Counts Five and Six under Rule 14(a) because of the substantial prejudice to Ms. Maxwell and these proceedings. A joint trial of the Perjury Counts will require a full-blown re-litigation of the defamation action, which will result in a collateral matter taking over the trial. Substantial amounts of evidence that would be inadmissible and irrelevant as to the Mann Act Counts will, necessarily, be presented in order to prove the Perjury Counts. For example, there will need to be a collateral trial on whether Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s statements\n\n9\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002291",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 120 Filed 01/25/21 Page 13 of 19",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(Indictment ¶ 2; accord id. ¶ 8.) As discussed in Ms. Maxwell's Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Dismiss Counts Five and Six, because the statements at issue are not perjurious, the questions asked were confusing, ambiguous, and improperly formed. None of the questions, or any answers, were material to any issue in the defamation action. There were no “crimes” concealed by Ms. Maxwell's answers which were both true and reflective of the poor questioning by the plaintiff's lawyers. The Government does not articulate how statements like: “I don’t know what you are talking about,” an admission that Ms. Maxwell “could not make a list” upon demand, her lack of knowledge about undefined “devices” or “toys” could possibly “conceal her crimes.” Accordingly, the government’s purported connection between the Perjury Counts and the Mann Act Counts defies logic and is insufficient to permit joinder under Rule 8(a). See Botti, 2009 WL 3157582, at *5 (joinder improper due to “speculative nature of the link” between structuring counts alleging false statements to IRS agent and separate corruption counts); Mitan, 2009 WL 2328870, at *3 (joinder improper where alleged perjury arose from false statement in connection with defendant’s bail application, not an attempt to “cover up” underlying scheme to defraud with which defendant was charged).",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The Perjury Counts Should Be Severed Under Rule 14(a) Because Their Inclusion Will Substantially Prejudice Ms. Maxwell at Trial",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even if the Court finds that joinder is proper under Rule 8, the Court should nevertheless exercise its discretion to sever Counts Five and Six under Rule 14(a) because of the substantial prejudice to Ms. Maxwell and these proceedings. A joint trial of the Perjury Counts will require a full-blown re-litigation of the defamation action, which will result in a collateral matter taking over the trial. Substantial amounts of evidence that would be inadmissible and irrelevant as to the Mann Act Counts will, necessarily, be presented in order to prove the Perjury Counts. For example, there will need to be a collateral trial on whether Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s statements",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002291",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Virginia Roberts Giuffre"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "IRS"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "01/25/21",
      "2009"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 120",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002291"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, with discussions on the Perjury Counts and the Mann Act Counts. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is page 13 of 19."
}