{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "487",
    "date": "11/22/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 487 Filed 11/22/21 Page 6 of 8\nPage 6\nVictims' submissions to the EVCP did not discuss the defendant, a criminal case against the defendant would not advance their claims.\nSecond, even if these subpoenas yielded marginally relevant impeachment material or marginally inconsistent statements notwithstanding their context, such evidence would not be admissible under Rule 403. At the November 1, 2021 conference, the defendant sought to preclude the Government from arguing that the Minor Victims' settlements with the EVCP reflects an endorsement of their claims, which “would be confusing to the jury” and “open the door to an explanation from the defense about what really happened in those proceedings,” a request to which the Court and Government agreed. (11/01/21 Tr. at 43:7-46:3). It remains the Government's position that cross-examination highlighting the fact that the Minor Victims received large settlements for their claims would not open the door to a broader discussion of the Epstein Victims Compensation Program.\nIf, however, the defendant engages in significant cross-examination about what Minor Victims did and did not say to the EVCP, and the reasons for those statements, it would create just that confusion and open just that door. If the defendant argues that a Minor Victim should have, but did not, make statements about the defendant to the EVCP, the Government will have to explain to the jury the purpose of the EVCP and its adjudicative process in order to contextualize that omission. Similarly, if the defendant argues that the Minor Victims' testimony was biased by some interrelationship between the EVCP and this case, the Government will have to explain to the jury the absence of such an interrelationship, including the timeline of the Minor Victims' statements relative to the timeline of the EVCP. Indeed, it appears that the defendant anticipates arguing that some Minor Victims' bias is shown by the fact that their counsel was involved in structuring the EVCP, which would require further response from the Government about the\nDOJ-OGR-00007398",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 487 Filed 11/22/21 Page 6 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Victims' submissions to the EVCP did not discuss the defendant, a criminal case against the defendant would not advance their claims.\nSecond, even if these subpoenas yielded marginally relevant impeachment material or marginally inconsistent statements notwithstanding their context, such evidence would not be admissible under Rule 403. At the November 1, 2021 conference, the defendant sought to preclude the Government from arguing that the Minor Victims' settlements with the EVCP reflects an endorsement of their claims, which “would be confusing to the jury” and “open the door to an explanation from the defense about what really happened in those proceedings,” a request to which the Court and Government agreed. (11/01/21 Tr. at 43:7-46:3). It remains the Government's position that cross-examination highlighting the fact that the Minor Victims received large settlements for their claims would not open the door to a broader discussion of the Epstein Victims Compensation Program.\nIf, however, the defendant engages in significant cross-examination about what Minor Victims did and did not say to the EVCP, and the reasons for those statements, it would create just that confusion and open just that door. If the defendant argues that a Minor Victim should have, but did not, make statements about the defendant to the EVCP, the Government will have to explain to the jury the purpose of the EVCP and its adjudicative process in order to contextualize that omission. Similarly, if the defendant argues that the Minor Victims' testimony was biased by some interrelationship between the EVCP and this case, the Government will have to explain to the jury the absence of such an interrelationship, including the timeline of the Minor Victims' statements relative to the timeline of the EVCP. Indeed, it appears that the defendant anticipates arguing that some Minor Victims' bias is shown by the fact that their counsel was involved in structuring the EVCP, which would require further response from the Government about the",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007398",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court",
      "EVCP"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "November 1, 2021",
      "11/22/21",
      "11/01/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 487",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007398"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}