{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "32",
    "document_number": "440",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page 32 of 40\n\nIn any event, even if the NPA were admissible, that would not open the door to introducing the defense's wish list of arguments about the New York and Florida investigations. The NPA is an agreement between Epstein and a different U.S. Attorney's Office that resolved a different investigation, with provisions that—the defense argues—are useful impeachment for two witnesses. Conducting that impeachment does not require the defense to offer evidence about why the New York investigation started, or the timing of charges against the defendant, or various investigators' views of the quantum of evidence generated against the defendant at any time.14\n\nC. Evidence that the Defendant was Not Charged by the USAO-SDFL is Irrelevant to Minor Victim-4's Credibility\n\nThe defense argues that the fact that the defendant was not charged by the USAO-SDFL after the Florida investigation is probative of Minor Victim-4's credibility, because Minor Victim-4 was interviewed by the FBI at the time and did not implicate the defendant (according to the defendant). The defense brief again recites at length its view of her statements to law enforcement. (Def. Opp. at 36-39). That argument is incorrect. The defense is free to cross-examine Minor Victim-4.\n\n14 The defense suggests that telling the jury that the defendant was not charged in the NPA is necessary because the jury might otherwise speculate on how the Florida investigation ended and whether the defendant was charged in that investigation. (Def. Opp. at 31). That point highlights that the defense intends to use the NPA, even if elicited on cross, as a proxy for the argument that the defendant was not charged in the Florida investigation. There is no reason to think the jury will so speculate if they do not learn how the Florida investigation terminated. But if they do so learn, they might incorrectly assume that the defendant was not charged solely because that investigation could not have generated inculpatory evidence against the defendant, which the Government is permitted to rebut. Although the defense argues that the Government would not discuss the circumstances of the NPA (Id. at 31), the Government might have to do so if the NPA becomes central to the defense case and is used to invite the jury to think that no evidence inculpating the defendant existed in 2007.\n\n31\nDOJ-OGR-00006548",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page 32 of 40",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In any event, even if the NPA were admissible, that would not open the door to introducing the defense's wish list of arguments about the New York and Florida investigations. The NPA is an agreement between Epstein and a different U.S. Attorney's Office that resolved a different investigation, with provisions that—the defense argues—are useful impeachment for two witnesses. Conducting that impeachment does not require the defense to offer evidence about why the New York investigation started, or the timing of charges against the defendant, or various investigators' views of the quantum of evidence generated against the defendant at any time.14",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. Evidence that the Defendant was Not Charged by the USAO-SDFL is Irrelevant to Minor Victim-4's Credibility",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defense argues that the fact that the defendant was not charged by the USAO-SDFL after the Florida investigation is probative of Minor Victim-4's credibility, because Minor Victim-4 was interviewed by the FBI at the time and did not implicate the defendant (according to the defendant). The defense brief again recites at length its view of her statements to law enforcement. (Def. Opp. at 36-39). That argument is incorrect. The defense is free to cross-examine Minor Victim-4.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "14 The defense suggests that telling the jury that the defendant was not charged in the NPA is necessary because the jury might otherwise speculate on how the Florida investigation ended and whether the defendant was charged in that investigation. (Def. Opp. at 31). That point highlights that the defense intends to use the NPA, even if elicited on cross, as a proxy for the argument that the defendant was not charged in the Florida investigation. There is no reason to think the jury will so speculate if they do not learn how the Florida investigation terminated. But if they do so learn, they might incorrectly assume that the defendant was not charged solely because that investigation could not have generated inculpatory evidence against the defendant, which the Government is permitted to rebut. Although the defense argues that the Government would not discuss the circumstances of the NPA (Id. at 31), the Government might have to do so if the NPA becomes central to the defense case and is used to invite the jury to think that no evidence inculpating the defendant existed in 2007.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "31",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006548",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Minor Victim-4"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Attorney's Office",
      "FBI",
      "USAO-SDFL",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21",
      "2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 440",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006548"
    ]
  },
  "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 page 32 of 40."
}