{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "23 of 40",
    "document_number": "383",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 383 Filed 10/29/21 Page 23 of 40\nGovernment need not wait until the witness is cross-examined. See United States v. Flores, 945 F.3d 687, 706 (2d Cir. 2019).\nFollowing defense attacks on the Minor Victims' credibility, the Government anticipates offering prior consistent statements it expects to elicit from its witnesses. Specifically, while the Government expects that some of its prior consistent statements will be offered to rebut the charge that the declarant \"recently fabricated [their testimony] or acted from a recent improper influence or motive,\" Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(i), many other statements will be offered to \"rehabilitate the declarant's credibility as a witness,\" including from charges that the declarant has given inconsistent statements or has a faulty memory, Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(ii). Because the grounds for admission will depend on the defense's precise challenge to the witness, the Government will raise this issue with the Court before eliciting prior consistent statements from its witnesses.\nIII. The Court Should Preclude the Defense from Making Improper Arguments and Proffering Irrelevant Evidence\nAt trial, the jury will be asked to determine whether the defendant conspired with others to arrange for the sexual abuse of six specific minors. Several of the Government's motions are aimed at preventing the defense from surprising the Court and the Government with irrelevant, inflammatory, and highly prejudicial arguments.\nThe defense response makes clear that they intend to put before the jury the history of the various Epstein investigations in other jurisdictions and the outcomes of those matters. Although that evidence is entirely improper and irrelevant, the defense plainly intends to make this central to the trial. (See Def. Opp. at 28-29). The breadth of the conspiracy theories the defense intends\n22\nDOJ-OGR-00005577",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 383 Filed 10/29/21 Page 23 of 40",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Government need not wait until the witness is cross-examined. See United States v. Flores, 945 F.3d 687, 706 (2d Cir. 2019).\nFollowing defense attacks on the Minor Victims' credibility, the Government anticipates offering prior consistent statements it expects to elicit from its witnesses. Specifically, while the Government expects that some of its prior consistent statements will be offered to rebut the charge that the declarant \"recently fabricated [their testimony] or acted from a recent improper influence or motive,\" Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(i), many other statements will be offered to \"rehabilitate the declarant's credibility as a witness,\" including from charges that the declarant has given inconsistent statements or has a faulty memory, Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(ii). Because the grounds for admission will depend on the defense's precise challenge to the witness, the Government will raise this issue with the Court before eliciting prior consistent statements from its witnesses.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. The Court Should Preclude the Defense from Making Improper Arguments and Proffering Irrelevant Evidence",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "At trial, the jury will be asked to determine whether the defendant conspired with others to arrange for the sexual abuse of six specific minors. Several of the Government's motions are aimed at preventing the defense from surprising the Court and the Government with irrelevant, inflammatory, and highly prejudicial arguments.\nThe defense response makes clear that they intend to put before the jury the history of the various Epstein investigations in other jurisdictions and the outcomes of those matters. Although that evidence is entirely improper and irrelevant, the defense plainly intends to make this central to the trial. (See Def. Opp. at 28-29). The breadth of the conspiracy theories the defense intends",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "22",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005577",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 383",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005577"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}