{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "317",
    "date": "08/13/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 11 of 14\n\nVI. No bill of particulars is warranted\n\nMaxwell moves for a bill of particulars as to counts five and six. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7 requires that an indictment contain \"a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged[.]\". The indictment must be specific enough to inform the defendant of the charges and allow the defendant to plead double jeopardy in a later prosecution based on the same events. See United States v. Stavroulakis, 952 F.2d 686, 693 (2d Cir. 1992). \"Under this test, an indictment need do little more than to track the language of the statute charged and state the time and place (in approximate terms) of the alleged crime.\" United States. v. Tramunti, 513 F.2d 1087, 1113 (2d Cir. 1975).\n\n\"Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a defendant to seek a bill of particulars in order to identify with sufficient particularity the nature of the charge pending against him, thereby enabling defendant to prepare for trial, to prevent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second time for the same offense.\" United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). \"The purpose of a bill of particulars is to supplement the allegations in the indictment when necessary to (1) enable the defendant to prepare his defense, (2) avoid unfair surprise to the defendant at trial, and (3) preclude a second prosecution of the same offense.\" United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)). On the other hand the Court must balance these interests against the harm to the Government from restricting its proof at trial. See United States v. Rajaratnam, No. 09-cr-1184 (RJH), 2010 WL 2788168, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 13, 2010).\n\nIn her previous motions, Maxwell argued that the Mann Act counts in the indictment should be dismissed for lack of specificity or that, in the alternative, the Court should compel the Government to submit a bill of particulars providing greater detail of the charges. Maxwell\n\n11\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004985",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 317 Filed 08/13/21 Page 11 of 14",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "VI. No bill of particulars is warranted",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell moves for a bill of particulars as to counts five and six. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7 requires that an indictment contain \"a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged[.]\". The indictment must be specific enough to inform the defendant of the charges and allow the defendant to plead double jeopardy in a later prosecution based on the same events. See United States v. Stavroulakis, 952 F.2d 686, 693 (2d Cir. 1992). \"Under this test, an indictment need do little more than to track the language of the statute charged and state the time and place (in approximate terms) of the alleged crime.\" United States. v. Tramunti, 513 F.2d 1087, 1113 (2d Cir. 1975).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a defendant to seek a bill of particulars in order to identify with sufficient particularity the nature of the charge pending against him, thereby enabling defendant to prepare for trial, to prevent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second time for the same offense.\" United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). \"The purpose of a bill of particulars is to supplement the allegations in the indictment when necessary to (1) enable the defendant to prepare his defense, (2) avoid unfair surprise to the defendant at trial, and (3) preclude a second prosecution of the same offense.\" United States v. Mandell, 710 F. Supp. 2d 368, 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)). On the other hand the Court must balance these interests against the harm to the Government from restricting its proof at trial. See United States v. Rajaratnam, No. 09-cr-1184 (RJH), 2010 WL 2788168, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 13, 2010).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In her previous motions, Maxwell argued that the Mann Act counts in the indictment should be dismissed for lack of specificity or that, in the alternative, the Court should compel the Government to submit a bill of particulars providing greater detail of the charges. Maxwell",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004985",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/13/21",
      "Jul. 13, 2010"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "317",
      "09-cr-1184",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004985"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}