{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "57",
    "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 57 of 69 admissible to demonstrate the lack of any intent or knowledge on the part of Ms. Maxwell. As with the other in limine requests, this evidence will need to be evaluated on a question by question basis and it is premature to issue blanket rulings as requested by the government. This case poses multi-jurisdictional issues that invite various defenses. The government has elected to prosecute, federally, conduct that is quintessentially state-based, and it is bound by its choice. It has charged offenses associated with coercion, force and violence, when such conduct did not occur in this case. It has alleged violation of a statute enacted to combat human trafficking, conduct that does not exist in this case. The government has manipulated federal statutes to fit alleged conduct that is not normally prosecuted federally and seeks to preclude defenses responsive to the allegations in the Indictment. It is premature to constrain Ms. Maxwell's defense before trial. Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to present evidence and make argument on the issue of consent when and where appropriate. VII. UNFOUNDED REQUEST TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S GOOD ACTS SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DENIED The government asks this Court to require that, before Ms. Maxwell refers to or offers evidence of her \"absence when Epstein abused victims who are not part of the government's case-in-chief, . . . [she] explain the evidence she plans to offer and why such evidence would be admissible.\" Mot. at 44. According to the government, evidence that Ms. Maxwell was \"absent\" when Mr. Epstein allegedly abused certain individuals is actually inadmissible \"good acts\" evidence because the jury could use it only to conclude that Ms. Maxwell acted in conformity with the prior good acts. Id. The government's argument imagines a duty to provide notice where none exists, and it misunderstands what constitutes prior-act evidence and basic concepts of relevance in the context of a conspiracy where one actor denies knowledge of an illegal 49 DOJ-OGR-00005512",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 382 Filed 10/29/21 Page 57 of 69",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "admissible to demonstrate the lack of any intent or knowledge on the part of Ms. Maxwell. As with the other in limine requests, this evidence will need to be evaluated on a question by question basis and it is premature to issue blanket rulings as requested by the government. This case poses multi-jurisdictional issues that invite various defenses. The government has elected to prosecute, federally, conduct that is quintessentially state-based, and it is bound by its choice. It has charged offenses associated with coercion, force and violence, when such conduct did not occur in this case. It has alleged violation of a statute enacted to combat human trafficking, conduct that does not exist in this case. The government has manipulated federal statutes to fit alleged conduct that is not normally prosecuted federally and seeks to preclude defenses responsive to the allegations in the Indictment. It is premature to constrain Ms. Maxwell's defense before trial. Ms. Maxwell reserves the right to present evidence and make argument on the issue of consent when and where appropriate.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "VII. UNFOUNDED REQUEST TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S GOOD ACTS SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DENIED",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government asks this Court to require that, before Ms. Maxwell refers to or offers evidence of her \"absence when Epstein abused victims who are not part of the government's case-in-chief, . . . [she] explain the evidence she plans to offer and why such evidence would be admissible.\" Mot. at 44. According to the government, evidence that Ms. Maxwell was \"absent\" when Mr. Epstein allegedly abused certain individuals is actually inadmissible \"good acts\" evidence because the jury could use it only to conclude that Ms. Maxwell acted in conformity with the prior good acts. Id. The government's argument imagines a duty to provide notice where none exists, and it misunderstands what constitutes prior-act evidence and basic concepts of relevance in the context of a conspiracy where one actor denies knowledge of an illegal",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "49",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005512",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Mr. Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "382",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005512"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 57 of 69."
}