{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "36 of 69",
    "document_number": "382",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 382 Filed 10/29/21 Page 36 of 69\nfor admissibility. To the extent the government seeks a pretrial ruling that all prior consistent statements may be admitted after any attack on the accusers' credibility, this Court should deny such a request.\n\nIII. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT ABOUT PRIOR CHARGING DECISIONS AND THE COURSE OF PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS IS ADMISSIBLE\n\n\"The right to call witnesses in order to present a meaningful defense at a criminal trial is a fundamental constitutional right secured by both the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.\" United States v. Percoco, 13 F.4th 158, 177 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). \"The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State's accusations. The rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to call witnesses in one's own behalf have long been recognized as essential to due process.\" Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973).\n\nThe government seeks to cripple Ms. Maxwell's ability to present a meaningful defense to the charges by trying to preclude evidence and argument that is relevant and admissible and central to Ms. Maxwell's defense. The government argues that Ms. Maxwell should be precluded from offering evidence and argument concerning the following facts: (1) the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (\"USAO-SDFL\") entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (\"NPA\") with Jeffrey Epstein, which resolved the USAO-SDFL/Palm Beach FBI investigation into Epstein (the \"Florida Investigation\") in 2008; (2) the USAO-SDFL did not charge Ms. Maxwell in its proposed indictment and did not immunize her by name in the NPA; and (3) the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (\"USAO-SDNY\") charged only Epstein in the first indictment in this case, and did\n28\nDOJ-OGR-00005491",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 382 Filed 10/29/21 Page 36 of 69",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "for admissibility. To the extent the government seeks a pretrial ruling that all prior consistent statements may be admitted after any attack on the accusers' credibility, this Court should deny such a request.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT ABOUT PRIOR CHARGING DECISIONS AND THE COURSE OF PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS IS ADMISSIBLE",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"The right to call witnesses in order to present a meaningful defense at a criminal trial is a fundamental constitutional right secured by both the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.\" United States v. Percoco, 13 F.4th 158, 177 (2d Cir. 2021) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). \"The right of an accused in a criminal trial to due process is, in essence, the right to a fair opportunity to defend against the State's accusations. The rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to call witnesses in one's own behalf have long been recognized as essential to due process.\" Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government seeks to cripple Ms. Maxwell's ability to present a meaningful defense to the charges by trying to preclude evidence and argument that is relevant and admissible and central to Ms. Maxwell's defense. The government argues that Ms. Maxwell should be precluded from offering evidence and argument concerning the following facts: (1) the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (\"USAO-SDFL\") entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement (\"NPA\") with Jeffrey Epstein, which resolved the USAO-SDFL/Palm Beach FBI investigation into Epstein (the \"Florida Investigation\") in 2008; (2) the USAO-SDFL did not charge Ms. Maxwell in its proposed indictment and did not immunize her by name in the NPA; and (3) the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (\"USAO-SDNY\") charged only Epstein in the first indictment in this case, and did",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "28",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005491",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida",
      "United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York",
      "FBI"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida",
      "New York",
      "Palm Beach"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "2008"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 382",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005491"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, with references to legal precedents and specific events involving Jeffrey Epstein."
}