{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "42",
    "document_number": "657",
    "date": "04/29/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 42 of 45 defense witnesses died three years or more prior to indictment); United States v. King, 560 F.2d 122, 130 (2d Cir. 1977) (defense witness died a year prior to the indictment). Here, the Defendant largely speculates about the contents of these deceased witnesses' absent testimony. She states, for example, that the two architect witnesses “could have established” the timeline for Epstein’s residences and renovations at each but does not say what that timeline is. Maxwell Br. at 29. Similarly, the Defendant states that Epstein’s live-in housekeeper could have testified that the Defendant spent only limited time with Epstein at his townhouse in New York but provides little basis or detail for that anticipated testimony. As with the documentary evidence above, such speculation, with the apparent presumption that absent evidence would necessarily favor the Defendant, is insufficient to establish actual prejudice. See United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651, 657 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (no prejudice where there is “no way of knowing what [an absent witness’s] testimony would have been”). Second, the Defendant fails to establish that the content of these witnesses' testimony could not have been introduced into trial by other means. At trial, witnesses testified that Epstein employed a significant number of individuals to work at his residences, renovate those residences, or fly his private airplane. Some, like Juan Alessi, Larry Visoski, and David Rodgers, testified at trial. Still others were listed on the parties' witness lists. The Defendant does not explain why these witnesses' testimony, or the testimony of those listed witnesses who were not called, could not have supplied the same information that she seeks from individuals who were unavailable to testify. Her assertion that only individuals that have since died could provide adequate testimony is entirely unsubstantiated. Similarly, the Defendant does not explain why evidence of construction or renovations at Epstein’s residences could not be proven by other witness testimony or by documentary evidence. 42 DOJ-OGR-00010408",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 42 of 45",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "defense witnesses died three years or more prior to indictment); United States v. King, 560 F.2d 122, 130 (2d Cir. 1977) (defense witness died a year prior to the indictment). Here, the Defendant largely speculates about the contents of these deceased witnesses' absent testimony. She states, for example, that the two architect witnesses “could have established” the timeline for Epstein’s residences and renovations at each but does not say what that timeline is. Maxwell Br. at 29. Similarly, the Defendant states that Epstein’s live-in housekeeper could have testified that the Defendant spent only limited time with Epstein at his townhouse in New York but provides little basis or detail for that anticipated testimony. As with the documentary evidence above, such speculation, with the apparent presumption that absent evidence would necessarily favor the Defendant, is insufficient to establish actual prejudice. See United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651, 657 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (no prejudice where there is “no way of knowing what [an absent witness’s] testimony would have been”).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, the Defendant fails to establish that the content of these witnesses' testimony could not have been introduced into trial by other means. At trial, witnesses testified that Epstein employed a significant number of individuals to work at his residences, renovate those residences, or fly his private airplane. Some, like Juan Alessi, Larry Visoski, and David Rodgers, testified at trial. Still others were listed on the parties' witness lists. The Defendant does not explain why these witnesses' testimony, or the testimony of those listed witnesses who were not called, could not have supplied the same information that she seeks from individuals who were unavailable to testify. Her assertion that only individuals that have since died could provide adequate testimony is entirely unsubstantiated. Similarly, the Defendant does not explain why evidence of construction or renovations at Epstein’s residences could not be proven by other witness testimony or by documentary evidence.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "42",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010408",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Juan Alessi",
      "Larry Visoski",
      "David Rodgers"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/29/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 657",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010408"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text discusses the defendant's claims regarding deceased witnesses and their potential testimony. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}