{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "24 of 37",
    "document_number": "600",
    "date": "02/11/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 600 Filed 02/11/22 Page 24 of 37\na part and furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims, [Ms. Maxwell] and Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to Epstein's residences in different states, which [Maxwell] knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse.\").\n\nMs. Maxwell moved to dismiss the multiplicitous conspiracy counts in her pretrial motions. (Dkt. 122, 210, 293). The Court, citing the Second Circuit's holding in United States v. Josephburg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006), found that the motion was premature because Ms. Maxwell had not been convicted on the conspiracy counts and, hence, was not yet in jeopardy of receiving multiple punishments for the same offense. (Dkt. 207 at 27-28; Dkt 317 at 9-10). The Court denied Ms. Maxwell's motion without prejudice, deferring the resolution of the multiplicity claim until after the conclusion of the trial. Id.\n\nThe trial is now over, and Ms. Maxwell was convicted on all three conspiracy counts. The government's theory of prosecution and the proof elicited at trial were entirely aligned with the allegations in the Indictment - that Ms. Maxwell participated in a single criminal conspiracy with Epstein, which may have evolved slightly over time, but always maintained the same overarching objective, the same core participants, and the same method of operation throughout the entire time period in the Indictment. Ms. Maxwell now faces the prospect of being punished multiple times for the same offense in violation of her rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Accordingly, we move the Court to impose judgement on only one of the three conspiracy counts.\n\nA. Applicable Law\n\n\"An indictment is multiplicitous when it charges a single offense as an offense multiple times, in separate counts, when, in law and fact, only one crime has been committed.\" United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 1999). Multiplicitous indictments violate the",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 600 Filed 02/11/22 Page 24 of 37",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "a part and furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims, [Ms. Maxwell] and Jeffrey Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to Epstein's residences in different states, which [Maxwell] knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse.\").",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ms. Maxwell moved to dismiss the multiplicitous conspiracy counts in her pretrial motions. (Dkt. 122, 210, 293). The Court, citing the Second Circuit's holding in United States v. Josephburg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006), found that the motion was premature because Ms. Maxwell had not been convicted on the conspiracy counts and, hence, was not yet in jeopardy of receiving multiple punishments for the same offense. (Dkt. 207 at 27-28; Dkt 317 at 9-10). The Court denied Ms. Maxwell's motion without prejudice, deferring the resolution of the multiplicity claim until after the conclusion of the trial. Id.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The trial is now over, and Ms. Maxwell was convicted on all three conspiracy counts. The government's theory of prosecution and the proof elicited at trial were entirely aligned with the allegations in the Indictment - that Ms. Maxwell participated in a single criminal conspiracy with Epstein, which may have evolved slightly over time, but always maintained the same overarching objective, the same core participants, and the same method of operation throughout the entire time period in the Indictment. Ms. Maxwell now faces the prospect of being punished multiple times for the same offense in violation of her rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Accordingly, we move the Court to impose judgement on only one of the three conspiracy counts.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Applicable Law",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"An indictment is multiplicitous when it charges a single offense as an offense multiple times, in separate counts, when, in law and fact, only one crime has been committed.\" United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 1999). Multiplicitous indictments violate the",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "19",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008948",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 600",
      "Dkt. 122",
      "Dkt. 210",
      "Dkt. 293",
      "Dkt. 207",
      "Dkt 317",
      "459 F.3d 350",
      "169 F.3d 140",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008948"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, discussing the issue of multiplicitous conspiracy counts and the Double Jeopardy Clause. The text is printed and there is no handwriting or stamps visible."
}