{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "714",
    "date": "07/12/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 714 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 7\njury may consider, but rather as background information or for some other purpose. That sentence would then conflict with the sentence in the instruction that the jury may consider the evidence to the extent it \"is relevant to the issues before [the jury].\" The Government proposes this edit to avoid any potential confusion by the jury.\nThe Government respectfully objects to the second proposed limiting instruction1 and submits that such an instruction should not be given. As an initial matter, the Government believes any such instruction will likely prove unnecessary at trial. The Government expects any testimony regarding the Minor Victims' sexual activity above the age of consent will be brief, involve few details, and be offered solely to complete the timeline of those witness's relationships with Epstein, or in anticipation of defense cross-examination about such conduct. (See 11/10/21 Tr. at 223:1-25). There is no need for a limiting instruction to prevent prejudice to the defense caused by defense cross-examination. And insofar as that need arises, it will be clearer once witnesses have testified about specific incidents at specific times where the age of consent is relevant.\nMoreover, the proposed limiting instruction risks confusing the jury and prejudice to the Government. First, the language that the witness \"was over the age of consent . . . at the relevant time\"1 For convenience, the proposed instruction is the following:\nI anticipate that you will hear testimony from the next witness about sexual conduct that she says she had with Mr. Epstein in [insert relevant jurisdiction, e.g. New Mexico]. I instruct you that because the witness was over the age of consent in [insert relevant jurisdiction, e.g. New Mexico] at the relevant time period, the sexual conduct she says occurred with Mr. Epstein was not \"illegal sexual activity\" as the Government has charged in the Indictment. However, to the extent you conclude that her testimony is relevant to the issues before you, you may consider it. However, you may not consider this testimony as any kind of reflection on Mr. Epstein's nor Ms. Maxwell's character or propensity to commit any of the crimes charged in the Indictment.\n2",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 714 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "jury may consider, but rather as background information or for some other purpose. That sentence would then conflict with the sentence in the instruction that the jury may consider the evidence to the extent it \"is relevant to the issues before [the jury].\" The Government proposes this edit to avoid any potential confusion by the jury.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government respectfully objects to the second proposed limiting instruction1 and submits that such an instruction should not be given. As an initial matter, the Government believes any such instruction will likely prove unnecessary at trial. The Government expects any testimony regarding the Minor Victims' sexual activity above the age of consent will be brief, involve few details, and be offered solely to complete the timeline of those witness's relationships with Epstein, or in anticipation of defense cross-examination about such conduct. (See 11/10/21 Tr. at 223:1-25). There is no need for a limiting instruction to prevent prejudice to the defense caused by defense cross-examination. And insofar as that need arises, it will be clearer once witnesses have testified about specific incidents at specific times where the age of consent is relevant.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Moreover, the proposed limiting instruction risks confusing the jury and prejudice to the Government. First, the language that the witness \"was over the age of consent . . . at the relevant time\"",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 For convenience, the proposed instruction is the following:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I anticipate that you will hear testimony from the next witness about sexual conduct that she says she had with Mr. Epstein in [insert relevant jurisdiction, e.g. New Mexico]. I instruct you that because the witness was over the age of consent in [insert relevant jurisdiction, e.g. New Mexico] at the relevant time period, the sexual conduct she says occurred with Mr. Epstein was not \"illegal sexual activity\" as the Government has charged in the Indictment. However, to the extent you conclude that her testimony is relevant to the issues before you, you may consider it. However, you may not consider this testimony as any kind of reflection on Mr. Epstein's nor Ms. Maxwell's character or propensity to commit any of the crimes charged in the Indictment.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New Mexico"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/12/22",
      "11/10/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "714"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text discusses the government's objections to proposed jury instructions and the potential for prejudice to the government or the defense. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}