{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "148",
    "document_number": "20-2",
    "date": "04/01/2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 21-770, Document 20-2, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page148 of 200\nk7e2MaxC kjc\n\n1 significant argument by the defense and it is a relevant\n2 consideration, but the court does not give it controlling\n3 weight here.\n4 To begin, in spite of the Epstein prosecution,\n5 Ms. Maxwell herself may have expected to avoid prosecution.\n6 After all, she was not named in the original indictment. The\n7 case was therefore distinguishable from United States v.\n8 Friedman, 837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988), a case where release was\n9 ordered in part because the defendant took no steps to flee\n10 after a search warrant was executed against the defendant and\n11 he had been arrested on state charges several weeks earlier.\n12 Likewise, the mere fact that she stayed in contact\n13 with the government means little if that was an effort to stave\n14 off indictment and she did not provide the government with her\n15 whereabouts. Circumstances of her arrest, as discussed, may\n16 cast some doubt on the claim that she was not hiding from the\n17 government, a claim that she makes throughout the papers and\n18 here today, but even if true, the reality that Ms. Maxwell may\n19 face such serious charges herself may not have set in until\n20 after she was actually indicted.\n21 Moreover, Ms. Maxwell's argument rests on a\n22 speculative premise that prior to indictment Ms. Maxwell had as\n23 clear an understanding as she does now of the serious nature of\n24 the charges, the potential sentence she may face, and the\n25 strength of the government's case. Whatever calculation and\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001089",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 21-770, Document 20-2, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page148 of 200",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 significant argument by the defense and it is a relevant\n2 consideration, but the court does not give it controlling\n3 weight here.\n4 To begin, in spite of the Epstein prosecution,\n5 Ms. Maxwell herself may have expected to avoid prosecution.\n6 After all, she was not named in the original indictment. The\n7 case was therefore distinguishable from United States v.\n8 Friedman, 837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988), a case where release was\n9 ordered in part because the defendant took no steps to flee\n10 after a search warrant was executed against the defendant and\n11 he had been arrested on state charges several weeks earlier.\n12 Likewise, the mere fact that she stayed in contact\n13 with the government means little if that was an effort to stave\n14 off indictment and she did not provide the government with her\n15 whereabouts. Circumstances of her arrest, as discussed, may\n16 cast some doubt on the claim that she was not hiding from the\n17 government, a claim that she makes throughout the papers and\n18 here today, but even if true, the reality that Ms. Maxwell may\n19 face such serious charges herself may not have set in until\n20 after she was actually indicted.\n21 Moreover, Ms. Maxwell's argument rests on a\n22 speculative premise that prior to indictment Ms. Maxwell had as\n23 clear an understanding as she does now of the serious nature of\n24 the charges, the potential sentence she may face, and the\n25 strength of the government's case. Whatever calculation and",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001089",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/01/2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 21-770",
      "Document 20-2",
      "3068530",
      "837 F.2d 48",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001089"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is typed and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document includes a header with case information and a footer with the name and contact information of the reporting agency."
}