{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "59",
    "document_number": "562",
    "date": "12/17/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 562 Filed 12/17/21 Page 59 of 82\n\n1 Instruction No. 42: Direct and Circumstantial Evidence\n2 I turn now to some general instructions. There are two types of evidence that you may\n3 use in reaching your verdict. One type of evidence is direct evidence. One kind of direct\n4 evidence is a witness's testimony about something that the witness knows by virtue of his or her\n5 own senses—something that the witness has seen, smelled, touched, or heard. Direct evidence\n6 may also be in the form of an exhibit.\n7 The other type of evidence is circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is\n8 evidence that tends to prove one fact by proof of other facts. There is a simple example of\n9 circumstantial evidence that is often used in this courthouse.\n10 Assume that when you came into the courthouse this morning the sun was shining and it\n11 was a nice day. Assume that there are blinds on the courtroom windows that are drawn and that\n12 you cannot look outside. As you are sitting here, someone walks in with an umbrella that is\n13 dripping wet. Someone else then walks in with a raincoat that is also dripping wet.\n14 Now, you cannot look outside the courtroom and you cannot see whether or not it is\n15 raining. So you have no direct evidence of that fact. But on the combination of the facts that I\n16 have asked you to assume, it would be reasonable and logical for you to conclude that between\n17 the time you arrived at the courthouse and the time these people walked in, it had started to rain.\n18 That is all there is to circumstantial evidence. You infer based on reason, experience, and\n19 common sense from an established fact the existence or the nonexistence of some other fact.\n20 Many facts, such as a person's state of mind, can only rarely be proved by direct\n21 evidence. Circumstantial evidence is of no less value than direct evidence. It is a general rule\n22 that the law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence, but simply requires\n23 that, before convicting Ms. Maxwell, you, the jury, must be satisfied of her guilt beyond a\n24 reasonable doubt from all the evidence in the case.\n58\nDOJ-OGR-00008515",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 562 Filed 12/17/21 Page 59 of 82",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Instruction No. 42: Direct and Circumstantial Evidence\n2 I turn now to some general instructions. There are two types of evidence that you may\n3 use in reaching your verdict. One type of evidence is direct evidence. One kind of direct\n4 evidence is a witness's testimony about something that the witness knows by virtue of his or her\n5 own senses—something that the witness has seen, smelled, touched, or heard. Direct evidence\n6 may also be in the form of an exhibit.\n7 The other type of evidence is circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is\n8 evidence that tends to prove one fact by proof of other facts. There is a simple example of\n9 circumstantial evidence that is often used in this courthouse.\n10 Assume that when you came into the courthouse this morning the sun was shining and it\n11 was a nice day. Assume that there are blinds on the courtroom windows that are drawn and that\n12 you cannot look outside. As you are sitting here, someone walks in with an umbrella that is\n13 dripping wet. Someone else then walks in with a raincoat that is also dripping wet.\n14 Now, you cannot look outside the courtroom and you cannot see whether or not it is\n15 raining. So you have no direct evidence of that fact. But on the combination of the facts that I\n16 have asked you to assume, it would be reasonable and logical for you to conclude that between\n17 the time you arrived at the courthouse and the time these people walked in, it had started to rain.\n18 That is all there is to circumstantial evidence. You infer based on reason, experience, and\n19 common sense from an established fact the existence or the nonexistence of some other fact.\n20 Many facts, such as a person's state of mind, can only rarely be proved by direct\n21 evidence. Circumstantial evidence is of no less value than direct evidence. It is a general rule\n22 that the law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence, but simply requires\n23 that, before convicting Ms. Maxwell, you, the jury, must be satisfied of her guilt beyond a\n24 reasonable doubt from all the evidence in the case.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "58",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008515",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "courthouse",
      "courtroom"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "12/17/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 562",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008515"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court instruction related to direct and circumstantial evidence. It is a printed document with no handwritten text or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}