{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "49",
    "document_number": "397",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 49 of 84\nprevious plans with Ferro to import narcotics . . . was evidence of 'other crimes' . . . [I]t corroborated the charge that Ferro and Romero-Padilla were partners during the charged conspiracy and established that Romero-Padilla's participation in the charged conspiracy was at least in part motivated by his desire to acquire [certain] funds . . .\nMinor Victim-3's testimony is also necessary to complete the story of the offense conduct in light of expected defenses at trial. To the extent that the defense argues, for instance, that the defendant played no role in obtaining girls to massage Epstein or was unaware that Epstein's\n11 The cases the defendant cites (Def. Mot. 4 at 8-9) conclude that the admission of evidence about distinct criminal incidents are not direct evidence of the conspiracy. See United States v. Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d 434, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), vacated on other grounds, 858 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 2017) (evidence of prior narcotics arrest and firearms conviction in narcotics and firearms case \"could be . . . connected to the charged conspiracy, but the Government has not provided enough detail\"); Townsend, 2007 WL 1288597, at *2 (stating that the Government did not show that uncharged firearm and drug transactions involving the same confidential informant outside the time period of the charged conspiracy, described \"rather generically\" as a sale of firearms and \"narcotics transactions,\" are \"part and parcel of\" the charged conduct or sufficiently similar to them); United States v. Mahaffy, 477 F. Supp. 2d 560, 566 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (stating that, although the facts between two fraud schemes were \"quite similar,\" the other acts were \"a separate, discrete offense that may be conceptually segregated from the charged offenses without impairing the jury's ability to understand the facts underlying the schemes alleged in the indictment\"), vacated in part on other grounds 285 F. App'x 797 (2d Cir. 2008); United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367, 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (\"[T]he transactions took place as early as three years prior to the charged conspiracy and appear to involve a series of distinct cash for gold transactions . . . .\"). That is not the case here, where the abuse of Minor Victim-3 occurred during the charged conspiracy period, overlaps temporally with the testimony of other Minor Victims, whose admissibility the defendant does not contest, and is direct proof of the operation of the conspiracy. But in any event, in each case, the Court admitted at least some evidence under Rule 404(b). See Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d at 438 (evidence admissible under Rule 404(b)); Townsend, 2007 WL 1288597, at *5-6 (some evidence admissible under Rule 404(b), some evidence \"far too vague\" for the Court to resolve, evidence of later marijuana possession irrelevant); Mahaffy, 477 F. Supp. 2d at 566 (evidence admissible under Rule 404(b)); Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 372 (evidence admissible under Rule 404(b)).\n48\nDOJ-OGR-00005832",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 49 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "previous plans with Ferro to import narcotics . . . was evidence of 'other crimes' . . . [I]t corroborated the charge that Ferro and Romero-Padilla were partners during the charged conspiracy and established that Romero-Padilla's participation in the charged conspiracy was at least in part motivated by his desire to acquire [certain] funds . . .",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Minor Victim-3's testimony is also necessary to complete the story of the offense conduct in light of expected defenses at trial. To the extent that the defense argues, for instance, that the defendant played no role in obtaining girls to massage Epstein or was unaware that Epstein's",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11 The cases the defendant cites (Def. Mot. 4 at 8-9) conclude that the admission of evidence about distinct criminal incidents are not direct evidence of the conspiracy. See United States v. Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d 434, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), vacated on other grounds, 858 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 2017) (evidence of prior narcotics arrest and firearms conviction in narcotics and firearms case \"could be . . . connected to the charged conspiracy, but the Government has not provided enough detail\"); Townsend, 2007 WL 1288597, at *2 (stating that the Government did not show that uncharged firearm and drug transactions involving the same confidential informant outside the time period of the charged conspiracy, described \"rather generically\" as a sale of firearms and \"narcotics transactions,\" are \"part and parcel of\" the charged conduct or sufficiently similar to them); United States v. Mahaffy, 477 F. Supp. 2d 560, 566 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (stating that, although the facts between two fraud schemes were \"quite similar,\" the other acts were \"a separate, discrete offense that may be conceptually segregated from the charged offenses without impairing the jury's ability to understand the facts underlying the schemes alleged in the indictment\"), vacated in part on other grounds 285 F. App'x 797 (2d Cir. 2008); United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d 367, 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (\"[T]he transactions took place as early as three years prior to the charged conspiracy and appear to involve a series of distinct cash for gold transactions . . . .\"). That is not the case here, where the abuse of Minor Victim-3 occurred during the charged conspiracy period, overlaps temporally with the testimony of other Minor Victims, whose admissibility the defendant does not contest, and is direct proof of the operation of the conspiracy. But in any event, in each case, the Court admitted at least some evidence under Rule 404(b). See Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d at 438 (evidence admissible under Rule 404(b)); Townsend, 2007 WL 1288597, at *5-6 (some evidence admissible under Rule 404(b), some evidence \"far too vague\" for the Court to resolve, evidence of later marijuana possession irrelevant); Mahaffy, 477 F. Supp. 2d at 566 (evidence admissible under Rule 404(b)); Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 372 (evidence admissible under Rule 404(b)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "48",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005832",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ferro",
      "Romero-Padilla",
      "Epstein",
      "Minor Victim-3",
      "Cummings",
      "Townsend",
      "Mahaffy",
      "Nektalov"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "2014",
      "2017",
      "2007",
      "2004",
      "2008"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "397",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005832"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the admissibility of evidence and cites various legal precedents. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}