{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "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 7 of 19\n\nB. Counts Five and Six (the \"Perjury Counts\")\nCounts Five and Six of the Indictment allege that Ms. Maxwell committed perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623 by testifying falsely at two separate civil depositions—one on April 22, 2016 (Count Five) and the other on July 22, 2016 (Count Six). Id. ¶¶ 21, 23.\n\nAPPLICABLE LAW\n\nA. Joinder of Offenses\nRule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, in relevant part,\n(a) Joinder of Offenses. The indictment or information may charge a defendant in separate counts with 2 or more offenses if the offenses charged--whether felonies or misdemeanors or both--are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.\nRule 8(a) sets forth three different circumstances in which separate offenses may be properly joined in the same indictment; namely, when the offenses: (1) “are of the same or similar character,” (2) “are based on the same act or transaction,” or (3) “are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a). Although charging separate offenses in the same indictment and allowing them to be tried together “inevitably involves some danger of prejudice” to the defendant, Rule 8 permits joinder of offenses in circumstances where “gains in trial efficiency outweigh the recognized prejudice that accrues to the accused.” United States v. Turoff, 853 F.2d 1037, 1042-43 (2d Cir.1988); see also United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922, 928 (2d Cir. 1980) (purpose of Rule 8 is to promote “trial convenience and economy of judicial and prosecutorial resources”); United States v. Halper, 590 F.2d 422, 430 (2d Cir. 1978) (“efficiency and economy” are the “customary justifications for joinder”).\nIn conducting a Rule 8(a) analysis, “no one characteristic is always sufficient to establish ‘similarity’ of offenses ... and each case depends largely on its own facts.” United States v.\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00002285",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 120 Filed 01/25/21 Page 7 of 19",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Counts Five and Six (the \"Perjury Counts\")\nCounts Five and Six of the Indictment allege that Ms. Maxwell committed perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623 by testifying falsely at two separate civil depositions—one on April 22, 2016 (Count Five) and the other on July 22, 2016 (Count Six). Id. ¶¶ 21, 23.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "APPLICABLE LAW\n\nA. Joinder of Offenses",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, in relevant part,\n(a) Joinder of Offenses. The indictment or information may charge a defendant in separate counts with 2 or more offenses if the offenses charged--whether felonies or misdemeanors or both--are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Rule 8(a) sets forth three different circumstances in which separate offenses may be properly joined in the same indictment; namely, when the offenses: (1) “are of the same or similar character,” (2) “are based on the same act or transaction,” or (3) “are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a). Although charging separate offenses in the same indictment and allowing them to be tried together “inevitably involves some danger of prejudice” to the defendant, Rule 8 permits joinder of offenses in circumstances where “gains in trial efficiency outweigh the recognized prejudice that accrues to the accused.” United States v. Turoff, 853 F.2d 1037, 1042-43 (2d Cir.1988); see also United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922, 928 (2d Cir. 1980) (purpose of Rule 8 is to promote “trial convenience and economy of judicial and prosecutorial resources”); United States v. Halper, 590 F.2d 422, 430 (2d Cir. 1978) (“efficiency and economy” are the “customary justifications for joinder”).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In conducting a Rule 8(a) analysis, “no one characteristic is always sufficient to establish ‘similarity’ of offenses ... and each case depends largely on its own facts.” United States v.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002285",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "April 22, 2016",
      "July 22, 2016",
      "01/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 120",
      "18 U.S.C. § 1623",
      "Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a)",
      "853 F.2d 1037",
      "620 F.2d 922",
      "590 F.2d 422",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002285"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, discussing the joinder of offenses and applicable law. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}