{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "document_number": "549-1",
    "date": "12/17/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 14 of 24 26 LB1TMAX1\n1 admissible under the usual rules of relevance. In White, the\n2 court determined that a prior charging decision was admissible\n3 because it bore directly on the credibility of a witness that\n4 testified at the defendant's trial.\n5 As currently proffered by the defense, the rationale\n6 doesn't apply here. For example, according to the defense, an\n7 alleged victim's statement to the FBI previously did not\n8 implicate or exculpate Ms. Maxwell, but her statement today\n9 does implicate her. On the basis of that statement, and\n10 assumedly other evidence available to them and a host of\n11 reasons, officials in the Southern District of Florida decided\n12 to not indict Ms. Maxwell at that time. That charging decision\n13 could be understood as a determination that in 2008 the\n14 government lacked sufficient evidence of Ms. Maxwell's guilt,\n15 but the decision not to charge -- or it could mean any number\n16 of a host of reasons, but the decision not to charge has little\n17 probative value that the Court can see as to this case.\n18 Charging decisions, as I said, are made for a host of\n19 reasons. Trying to sort through those reasons would be\n20 prejudicial pursuant to 403 both because they would require\n21 significant time to explore and because juror confusion would\n22 be likely. Any consideration of the government's decisions\n23 would also likely rely on hearsay or other inadmissible\n24 evidence. More importantly, unlike in White, those officials'\n25 assessments of the evidence in Florida in 2008 is not relevant\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00008408",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 14 of 24 26 LB1TMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 admissible under the usual rules of relevance. In White, the\n2 court determined that a prior charging decision was admissible\n3 because it bore directly on the credibility of a witness that\n4 testified at the defendant's trial.\n5 As currently proffered by the defense, the rationale\n6 doesn't apply here. For example, according to the defense, an\n7 alleged victim's statement to the FBI previously did not\n8 implicate or exculpate Ms. Maxwell, but her statement today\n9 does implicate her. On the basis of that statement, and\n10 assumedly other evidence available to them and a host of\n11 reasons, officials in the Southern District of Florida decided\n12 to not indict Ms. Maxwell at that time. That charging decision\n13 could be understood as a determination that in 2008 the\n14 government lacked sufficient evidence of Ms. Maxwell's guilt,\n15 but the decision not to charge -- or it could mean any number\n16 of a host of reasons, but the decision not to charge has little\n17 probative value that the Court can see as to this case.\n18 Charging decisions, as I said, are made for a host of\n19 reasons. Trying to sort through those reasons would be\n20 prejudicial pursuant to 403 both because they would require\n21 significant time to explore and because juror confusion would\n22 be likely. Any consideration of the government's decisions\n23 would also likely rely on hearsay or other inadmissible\n24 evidence. More importantly, unlike in White, those officials'\n25 assessments of the evidence in Florida in 2008 is not relevant",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008408",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "12/17/21",
      "2008"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "549-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008408"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. It is typed and contains legal terminology and references to specific court cases and rules of evidence. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}