{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "549-1",
    "date": "12/17/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 10 of 24 22\nLB1TMAX1\n1 substantially confuse and delay the trial. The evidence\n2 outlined in the defense's papers, including who was interviewed\n3 and when, what documents were subpoenaed and other details of\n4 investigations in two different states and different time\n5 periods would substantially expand the scope of the trial.\n6 Exactly what steps investigators took is not a simple question,\n7 of course. The government would likely present a contrary\n8 account of events, leading to trials within trials on what law\n9 enforcement did over the course of years.\n10 This prejudice would substantially outweigh any minimum probative value that might\n11 be gained from such a far-flung endeavor.\n12 Third, as to prejudice, the evidence would be\n13 cumulative, demonstrating that an investigation was \"hasty\" and\n14 not thorough is at best repetitive of the defense's arguments\n15 that the government collected insufficient evidence of guilt.\n16 That point is made most clearly and directly by focusing on the\n17 evidence or lack of evidence and credibility or lack of\n18 credibility of the witnesses presented at trial.\n19 The second piece of guidance I can provide now is that\n20 the Court will exclude much of the evidence outlined in the\n21 defense's papers of the government's alleged motives for\n22 investigating and charging Ms. Maxwell. This evidence includes\n23 but is not limited to the Miami Herald article, statements from\n24 Attorney General William Barr and the like.\n25 The evidence presented by the government in this trial\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00008404",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 10 of 24 22",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LB1TMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 substantially confuse and delay the trial. The evidence\n2 outlined in the defense's papers, including who was interviewed\n3 and when, what documents were subpoenaed and other details of\n4 investigations in two different states and different time\n5 periods would substantially expand the scope of the trial.\n6 Exactly what steps investigators took is not a simple question,\n7 of course. The government would likely present a contrary\n8 account of events, leading to trials within trials on what law\n9 enforcement did over the course of years.\n10 This prejudice would substantially outweigh any minimum probative value that might\n11 be gained from such a far-flung endeavor.\n12 Third, as to prejudice, the evidence would be\n13 cumulative, demonstrating that an investigation was \"hasty\" and\n14 not thorough is at best repetitive of the defense's arguments\n15 that the government collected insufficient evidence of guilt.\n16 That point is made most clearly and directly by focusing on the\n17 evidence or lack of evidence and credibility or lack of\n18 credibility of the witnesses presented at trial.\n19 The second piece of guidance I can provide now is that\n20 the Court will exclude much of the evidence outlined in the\n21 defense's papers of the government's alleged motives for\n22 investigating and charging Ms. Maxwell. This evidence includes\n23 but is not limited to the Miami Herald article, statements from\n24 Attorney General William Barr and the like.\n25 The evidence presented by the government in this trial",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008404",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "William Barr"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Miami Herald",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "12/17/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "549-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008404"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. It is typed and contains no handwritten text or stamps. The text is clear and legible."
}