{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "239",
    "date": "04/23/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 239 Filed 04/23/21 Page 2 of 6\nPage 2\nto those other agency files in an October 7, 2020 letter, (Dkt. 63), and restates certain information here in order to provide context for what, and how the Government has reviewed files for material related to the NPA.\nIn sum, the Government has not identified any materials within its possession that would constitute potential Brady material with respect to the NPA, that is, “exculpatory evidence” as to which “there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Youngblood v. West Virginia, 547 U.S. 867, 870 (2006). With this definition in mind, the Government would view any evidence that the NPA was intended to (i) bind other U.S. Attorneys in other districts; or (ii) cover Maxwell specifically, as “evidence supporting Maxwell’s interpretation of the NPA” that it would be required to disclose. (See April 16, 2021 Opinion, Dkt. No. 207, at 8, 3-7 (discussing the bases for Maxwell’s motion under the NPA)). As set forth in more detail below, the Government has not identified any such evidence in its possession.\nThe Government does not, however, view any other materials that are simply related to the NPA as materials it is required to disclose in this case, either under Rule 16 or Brady. Nevertheless, and as the Court recognized, the defendant already has access to a large swath of information that the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) compiled as a result of their thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the negotiation of the NPA, and the Government has not sought to, nor would it be obligated to, redo OPR’s work. (Dkt. No. 207, at 8 (noting the “extensive OPR report” and that “No record evidence suggests that prosecutors promised Epstein anything beyond what was spelled out in writing.”).\nIn the interest of clarity, the Government sets forth below a description of the materials it has compiled and reviewed, and will continue to review, for potential Brady material in this case, while\nDOJ-OGR-00003956",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 239 Filed 04/23/21 Page 2 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "to those other agency files in an October 7, 2020 letter, (Dkt. 63), and restates certain information here in order to provide context for what, and how the Government has reviewed files for material related to the NPA.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In sum, the Government has not identified any materials within its possession that would constitute potential Brady material with respect to the NPA, that is, “exculpatory evidence” as to which “there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Youngblood v. West Virginia, 547 U.S. 867, 870 (2006). With this definition in mind, the Government would view any evidence that the NPA was intended to (i) bind other U.S. Attorneys in other districts; or (ii) cover Maxwell specifically, as “evidence supporting Maxwell’s interpretation of the NPA” that it would be required to disclose. (See April 16, 2021 Opinion, Dkt. No. 207, at 8, 3-7 (discussing the bases for Maxwell’s motion under the NPA)). As set forth in more detail below, the Government has not identified any such evidence in its possession.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government does not, however, view any other materials that are simply related to the NPA as materials it is required to disclose in this case, either under Rule 16 or Brady. Nevertheless, and as the Court recognized, the defendant already has access to a large swath of information that the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) compiled as a result of their thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the negotiation of the NPA, and the Government has not sought to, nor would it be obligated to, redo OPR’s work. (Dkt. No. 207, at 8 (noting the “extensive OPR report” and that “No record evidence suggests that prosecutors promised Epstein anything beyond what was spelled out in writing.”).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In the interest of clarity, the Government sets forth below a description of the materials it has compiled and reviewed, and will continue to review, for potential Brady material in this case, while",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003956",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department of Justice",
      "Office of Professional Responsibility"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "West Virginia"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "October 7, 2020",
      "April 16, 2021",
      "04/23/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 239",
      "Dkt. 63",
      "Dkt. No. 207"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 2 of a 6-page document."
}