{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "394",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 394 Filed 10/29/21 Page 5 of 9\n\nUnder the Federal Rules, relevant evidence is generally admissible while irrelevant evidence is categorically inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. Evidence is relevant if it tends to make a fact of consequence to the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401. In turn, relevant evidence must be excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403.\n\nHere, testimony that Mr. Epstein allegedly raped Accuser-1 (or anyone else) is irrelevant to the charged offenses. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. The indictment does not allege that Mr. Epstein raped anyone. And Accuser-1 has never alleged that Ms. Maxwell knew about or participated in an alleged rape. Because the conspiracy charged in the indictment is limited to enticement and transportation of minors across state lines to provide Mr. Epstein with sexualized massages, there is no argument that Accuser-1's rape allegation is relevant to the charged conspiracy. It (and any other allegation of rape by anyone else) therefore must be excluded. Fed. R. Evid. 402.\n\nEven if a rape allegation had some relevance, Rule 403 would still require its exclusion because the minimal probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when it has an \"undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.\" Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 180 (1997).\n\nHere, any allegation that Mr. Epstein raped Accuser-1 (or anyone else) will suggest to the jury that it should convict Ms. Maxwell based on Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct and not the offenses with which she has been charged. Admission of this evidence poses a serious risk that\n\n2\nDOJ-OGR-00005761",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 394 Filed 10/29/21 Page 5 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Under the Federal Rules, relevant evidence is generally admissible while irrelevant evidence is categorically inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. Evidence is relevant if it tends to make a fact of consequence to the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401. In turn, relevant evidence must be excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 403.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here, testimony that Mr. Epstein allegedly raped Accuser-1 (or anyone else) is irrelevant to the charged offenses. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. The indictment does not allege that Mr. Epstein raped anyone. And Accuser-1 has never alleged that Ms. Maxwell knew about or participated in an alleged rape. Because the conspiracy charged in the indictment is limited to enticement and transportation of minors across state lines to provide Mr. Epstein with sexualized massages, there is no argument that Accuser-1's rape allegation is relevant to the charged conspiracy. It (and any other allegation of rape by anyone else) therefore must be excluded. Fed. R. Evid. 402.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even if a rape allegation had some relevance, Rule 403 would still require its exclusion because the minimal probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and misleading the jury. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when it has an \"undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.\" Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 180 (1997).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here, any allegation that Mr. Epstein raped Accuser-1 (or anyone else) will suggest to the jury that it should convict Ms. Maxwell based on Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct and not the offenses with which she has been charged. Admission of this evidence poses a serious risk that",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005761",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Accuser-1",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "1997"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 394",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005761"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, discussing the admissibility of evidence regarding Mr. Epstein's alleged conduct."
}