{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 9 of 127\nLB1TMAX1\n\n1    Moreover, any potential prejudice in this regard can\n2    be cured with an appropriate instruction explaining that the\n3    reason for the precaution is regard for the witnesses' and\n4    alleged victims' privacy, and that no inference can or should\n5    be drawn against the defendant because of these precautions\n6    My colleagues in this district and elsewhere have used\n7    such an instruction in similar cases. The defense's concern\n8    that this sort of instruction affords \"Court-sanctioned\n9    sympathy and credibility\" is unfounded. My instructions on the\n10   law will clearly and repeatedly instruct the jury on the\n11   presumption of innocence and their sole role in assessing\n12   witness credibility\n13       Nor am I persuaded by the defense's arguments that the\n14   fact that some alleged victims have previously publicly\n15   disclosed some of their allegations obviates the need to limit\n16   disclosure. As another district court has held, \"just because\n17   some victims' names are publicly available does not mean that\n18   the details of their experience are already available.\"\n19   Raniere, Docket No. 662 at 34, n. 17\n20       As I acknowledged in my protective order for this\n21   case, \"Not all accusations and public statements are equal.\n22   Deciding to participate in or contribute to a criminal\n23   investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than\n24   simply making a public statement relating to Ms. Maxwell or\n25   Jeffrey Epstein.\" Docket No. 37 in this case at 2.\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00007060",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 9 of 127",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LB1TMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1    Moreover, any potential prejudice in this regard can\n2    be cured with an appropriate instruction explaining that the\n3    reason for the precaution is regard for the witnesses' and\n4    alleged victims' privacy, and that no inference can or should\n5    be drawn against the defendant because of these precautions\n6    My colleagues in this district and elsewhere have used\n7    such an instruction in similar cases. The defense's concern\n8    that this sort of instruction affords \"Court-sanctioned\n9    sympathy and credibility\" is unfounded. My instructions on the\n10   law will clearly and repeatedly instruct the jury on the\n11   presumption of innocence and their sole role in assessing\n12   witness credibility\n13       Nor am I persuaded by the defense's arguments that the\n14   fact that some alleged victims have previously publicly\n15   disclosed some of their allegations obviates the need to limit\n16   disclosure. As another district court has held, \"just because\n17   some victims' names are publicly available does not mean that\n18   the details of their experience are already available.\"\n19   Raniere, Docket No. 662 at 34, n. 17\n20       As I acknowledged in my protective order for this\n21   case, \"Not all accusations and public statements are equal.\n22   Deciding to participate in or contribute to a criminal\n23   investigation or prosecution is a far different matter than\n24   simply making a public statement relating to Ms. Maxwell or\n25   Jeffrey Epstein.\" Docket No. 37 in this case at 2.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007060",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "Docket No. 662",
      "Docket No. 37",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007060"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
}