{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "19 of 21",
    "document_number": "387",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 387 Filed 10/29/21 Page 19 of 21 activity\" with Epstein. That, in turn, may cause the jury to improperly convict Ms. Maxwell based on a false assumption. Finally, the Court should give the jury an appropriate limiting instruction to ensure that the jury understands that the alleged conduct was not unlawful and does not consider it as improper propensity evidence. If Accuser-3 is allowed to testify that she engaged in sex acts with Epstein in London when she was 17, as the government has proffered, the jury will almost certainly assume that the alleged conduct was unlawful, as it would be in certain U.S. states, and that the testimony is being offered to prove that Epstein and Accuser-3 engaged in \"illegal sexual activity\" in London. Accordingly, if Accuser-3 is allowed to testify, we request that the Court give the jury a limiting instruction containing the following points: The legal age of consent for sexual activity in the United Kingdom is 16 years old. That was also the legal age of consent from 1994-1995, when Accuser-3 alleges she engaged in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein in London when she was 17 years old. The alleged conduct that Accuser-3 has described in her testimony was therefore not illegal. If you find that these incidents took place, I instruct you that this sexual activity cannot be considered \"illegal\" or \"criminal\" or \"unlawful\" for purposes of the crimes charged in the indictment. If the Court determines that Accuser-3's testimony may be admitted as 404(b) evidence, Ms. Maxwell further requests that the Court also give the jury an appropriate propensity instruction. See Dolney, 2005 WL 2129169, at *2 (\"In the absence of such a limiting instruction, there exists a legitimate concern that the jury might misapply [the] evidence to conclude that if the defendants engaged in criminal conduct prior to the charged conspiracy, then the conduct at issue in these charges must also be criminal.\") 15 DOJ-OGR-00005683",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 387 Filed 10/29/21 Page 19 of 21",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "activity\" with Epstein. That, in turn, may cause the jury to improperly convict Ms. Maxwell based on a false assumption. Finally, the Court should give the jury an appropriate limiting instruction to ensure that the jury understands that the alleged conduct was not unlawful and does not consider it as improper propensity evidence. If Accuser-3 is allowed to testify that she engaged in sex acts with Epstein in London when she was 17, as the government has proffered, the jury will almost certainly assume that the alleged conduct was unlawful, as it would be in certain U.S. states, and that the testimony is being offered to prove that Epstein and Accuser-3 engaged in \"illegal sexual activity\" in London. Accordingly, if Accuser-3 is allowed to testify, we request that the Court give the jury a limiting instruction containing the following points: The legal age of consent for sexual activity in the United Kingdom is 16 years old. That was also the legal age of consent from 1994-1995, when Accuser-3 alleges she engaged in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein in London when she was 17 years old. The alleged conduct that Accuser-3 has described in her testimony was therefore not illegal. If you find that these incidents took place, I instruct you that this sexual activity cannot be considered \"illegal\" or \"criminal\" or \"unlawful\" for purposes of the crimes charged in the indictment.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "If the Court determines that Accuser-3's testimony may be admitted as 404(b) evidence, Ms. Maxwell further requests that the Court also give the jury an appropriate propensity instruction. See Dolney, 2005 WL 2129169, at *2 (\"In the absence of such a limiting instruction, there exists a legitimate concern that the jury might misapply [the] evidence to conclude that if the defendants engaged in criminal conduct prior to the charged conspiracy, then the conduct at issue in these charges must also be criminal.\")",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005683",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Accuser-3",
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "United Kingdom",
      "London",
      "U.S."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "1994",
      "1995"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 387",
      "2005 WL 2129169",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005683"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, with discussions about the admissibility of certain testimony and the need for limiting instructions to the jury."
}