{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "647",
    "date": "03/11/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page 15 of 24\ncounts in the Indictment or in its arguments to the jury as two separate criminal agreements between Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to commit two separate crimes. To the contrary, the government's theory throughout the case was that Ms. Maxwell participated in a single criminal conspiracy with Epstein, which may have evolved slightly over time, but always maintained the same overarching objective, the same core participants, and the same method of operation throughout the entire time period alleged in the Indictment.\nThe government's arguments to the jury were consistent with the proof at trial, which established, at most, a single decade-long conspiracy between Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, not multiple independent conspiracies. See United States v. Sattar, 314 F. Supp. 2d 279, 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“A single agreement to commit several crimes constitutes one conspiracy,” but “multiple agreements to commit separate crimes constitute multiple conspiracies” (quoting United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1989))). Indeed, the government repeatedly emphasized to the jury the similarities of what occurred to the four accusers and the “common playbook” that Epstein and Ms. Maxwell used with each of them. (Tr. 2848) (“[Maxwell] ran the same playbook over and over and over again as she exploited young girls. The similarities between what happened to Jane and Annie and Carolyn and Kate are incredibly powerful evidence of the defendant's guilt”).\nThe government's current position is a 180-degree about-face and is nothing more than an after-the-fact attempt to preserve as many counts of conviction as possible and avoid the consequences of its own charging theory. As we explained in our Motion and as discussed further below, under the governing multi-factor test established in United States v. Korfant, 771\n11\nDOJ-OGR-00010281",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page 15 of 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "counts in the Indictment or in its arguments to the jury as two separate criminal agreements between Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to commit two separate crimes. To the contrary, the government's theory throughout the case was that Ms. Maxwell participated in a single criminal conspiracy with Epstein, which may have evolved slightly over time, but always maintained the same overarching objective, the same core participants, and the same method of operation throughout the entire time period alleged in the Indictment.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government's arguments to the jury were consistent with the proof at trial, which established, at most, a single decade-long conspiracy between Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, not multiple independent conspiracies. See United States v. Sattar, 314 F. Supp. 2d 279, 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“A single agreement to commit several crimes constitutes one conspiracy,” but “multiple agreements to commit separate crimes constitute multiple conspiracies” (quoting United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 570-71 (1989))). Indeed, the government repeatedly emphasized to the jury the similarities of what occurred to the four accusers and the “common playbook” that Epstein and Ms. Maxwell used with each of them. (Tr. 2848) (“[Maxwell] ran the same playbook over and over and over again as she exploited young girls. The similarities between what happened to Jane and Annie and Carolyn and Kate are incredibly powerful evidence of the defendant's guilt”).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government's current position is a 180-degree about-face and is nothing more than an after-the-fact attempt to preserve as many counts of conviction as possible and avoid the consequences of its own charging theory. As we explained in our Motion and as discussed further below, under the governing multi-factor test established in United States v. Korfant, 771",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010281",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Jane",
      "Annie",
      "Carolyn",
      "Kate",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/11/22",
      "2004",
      "1989"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 647",
      "314 F. Supp. 2d 279",
      "488 U.S. 563",
      "771",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010281"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the government's theory of the case and the evidence presented at trial. The document includes citations to legal precedents and references to specific pages of the trial transcript."
}