{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "42 of 84",
    "document_number": "397",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 42 of 84\n\nin their ability to investigate or move in limine. The Government's Rule 404(b) notice—and this brief—have been provided far in advance of trial. In many cases, the Government gives Rule 404(b) notice two weeks before trial, and here the Government's notice concerns a small number of exhibits and only one witness. See, e.g., United States v. Tranquillo, 606 F. Supp. 2d 370, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“The Government has indicated that it will make the required disclosure two weeks prior to trial, a practice that typically comports with Rule 404(b).”); United States v. Fennell, 496 F. Supp. 2d 279, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (“The government has in good faith noted its obligations under Rule 404(b), and indicated that it intends to provide notice of the 404(b) evidence it intends to introduce two weeks before the beginning of trial. There is therefore no need to issue the order Defendant seeks.”). The Government has identified the specific evidence it will seek to admit—not just the types of evidence—and has explained the connection between that evidence and non-propensity purposes for which it will be offered. That is all Rule 404(b) requires.\n\nIII. The Testimony of Minor Victim-3 is Admissible\n\nThe defendant has moved to exclude evidence related to Minor Victim-3. This is nothing more than an attempt to seek reconsideration of the Court's pretrial order denying the defense's motion to strike Minor Victim-3 from the Indictment. Evidence of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of Minor Victim-3 is direct evidence of the offense charged in the Indictment, including the overt acts in the Indictment that pertain to Minor Victim-3. And in any event, her testimony would easily satisfy the requirements of Rule 404(b).\n\nA. Background\n\nBoth the first and second superseding indictments described the defendant and Epstein's sexual abuse of Minor Victim-3. As set forth in the Indictment, the defendant “groomed and 41\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005825",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 42 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "in their ability to investigate or move in limine. The Government's Rule 404(b) notice—and this brief—have been provided far in advance of trial. In many cases, the Government gives Rule 404(b) notice two weeks before trial, and here the Government's notice concerns a small number of exhibits and only one witness. See, e.g., United States v. Tranquillo, 606 F. Supp. 2d 370, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (“The Government has indicated that it will make the required disclosure two weeks prior to trial, a practice that typically comports with Rule 404(b).”); United States v. Fennell, 496 F. Supp. 2d 279, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (“The government has in good faith noted its obligations under Rule 404(b), and indicated that it intends to provide notice of the 404(b) evidence it intends to introduce two weeks before the beginning of trial. There is therefore no need to issue the order Defendant seeks.”). The Government has identified the specific evidence it will seek to admit—not just the types of evidence—and has explained the connection between that evidence and non-propensity purposes for which it will be offered. That is all Rule 404(b) requires.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. The Testimony of Minor Victim-3 is Admissible",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant has moved to exclude evidence related to Minor Victim-3. This is nothing more than an attempt to seek reconsideration of the Court's pretrial order denying the defense's motion to strike Minor Victim-3 from the Indictment. Evidence of the defendant and Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of Minor Victim-3 is direct evidence of the offense charged in the Indictment, including the overt acts in the Indictment that pertain to Minor Victim-3. And in any event, her testimony would easily satisfy the requirements of Rule 404(b).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Background",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Both the first and second superseding indictments described the defendant and Epstein's sexual abuse of Minor Victim-3. As set forth in the Indictment, the defendant “groomed and 41",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005825",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Minor Victim-3"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "397",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005825"
    ]
  },
  "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 42 of 84."
}