{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "33 of 54",
    "document_number": "438",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 438 Filed 11/12/21 Page 33 of 54\n(see generally Dep't of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Report, Dkt. No. 293 Ex. A at v-vi), evidence or argument on that point can only distract the jury from its function.\nThe defense is free to offer its own evidence about the victims and instances charged in this case, and it is free to attempt to impeach the Government's witnesses through legitimate evidentiary means. But evidence about unrelated investigative steps and their outcomes would only serve to extend the trial and distract the jury with irrelevant information. This Court should preclude such evidence.\nC. The Defense Should Not Be Permitted to Call Case Agents Without First Proffering a Valid Basis for Their Testimony\nAs explained above, the Court should preclude evidence or argument regarding either the outcomes of the prior investigations, investigative steps taken during those investigations, the length of those investigations, or the evidence developed during those investigations about unrelated events. Nevertheless, it appears the defense intends to call one or more case agents in order to elicit such improper testimony. The Court should preclude testimony from case agents unless the defense identifies a proper basis for their testimony.\nThe Government has received a request from the defense pursuant to United States ex rel. Touhy v. Regan, 340 U.S. 462 (1951) for the testimony of two FBI case agents from the Florida Investigations and two FBI case agents for the investigation that led to charges in this District against Epstein and the defendant. The notice is attached as Exhibit A. According to the Touhy request, which must summarize the testimony sought, see 28 C.F.R. § 16.23(c), the defendant seeks testimony \"concerning the scope, timeline, and resolution of the investigation, as well as the various investigative steps taken by the agents, including but not limited to testimony\n32\nDOJ-OGR-00006393",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 438 Filed 11/12/21 Page 33 of 54",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(see generally Dep't of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility Report, Dkt. No. 293 Ex. A at v-vi), evidence or argument on that point can only distract the jury from its function.\nThe defense is free to offer its own evidence about the victims and instances charged in this case, and it is free to attempt to impeach the Government's witnesses through legitimate evidentiary means. But evidence about unrelated investigative steps and their outcomes would only serve to extend the trial and distract the jury with irrelevant information. This Court should preclude such evidence.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. The Defense Should Not Be Permitted to Call Case Agents Without First Proffering a Valid Basis for Their Testimony",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As explained above, the Court should preclude evidence or argument regarding either the outcomes of the prior investigations, investigative steps taken during those investigations, the length of those investigations, or the evidence developed during those investigations about unrelated events. Nevertheless, it appears the defense intends to call one or more case agents in order to elicit such improper testimony. The Court should preclude testimony from case agents unless the defense identifies a proper basis for their testimony.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government has received a request from the defense pursuant to United States ex rel. Touhy v. Regan, 340 U.S. 462 (1951) for the testimony of two FBI case agents from the Florida Investigations and two FBI case agents for the investigation that led to charges in this District against Epstein and the defendant. The notice is attached as Exhibit A. According to the Touhy request, which must summarize the testimony sought, see 28 C.F.R. § 16.23(c), the defendant seeks testimony \"concerning the scope, timeline, and resolution of the investigation, as well as the various investigative steps taken by the agents, including but not limited to testimony",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "32",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006393",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Dep't of Justice",
      "Office of Professional Responsibility",
      "FBI",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21",
      "1951"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 438",
      "Dkt. No. 293 Ex. A",
      "340 U.S. 462",
      "28 C.F.R. § 16.23(c)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006393"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and legible. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}