{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "120",
    "date": "01/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 120 Filed 01/25/21 Page 10 of 19\n\nPrejudice sufficient to justify severance under Rule 14 may exist when: (1) the defendant might become embarrassed or confounded in presenting separate defenses, (2) the jury might use evidence of one of the crimes charged to infer a criminal disposition to commit the other crime or crimes charged, or (3) the jury might cumulate evidence of the various crimes charged to find guilt on a count, which if considered separately, it would not so find. Halper, 590 F.2d at 440 (citing Drew v. United States, 331 F.2d 85, 88 (D.C. Cir. 1964)); United States v. Chevalier, 776 F. Supp. 853, 857 (D. Vt. 1991) (citing United States v. Lewis, 626 F.2d 940, 945 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). The decision to sever is “committed to the sound discretion of the district court” and is “virtually unreviewable” on appeal. Ramos, 2009 WL 1619912, at *1; Burke, 789 F. Supp. 2d at 398.\n\nANALYSIS\n\nA. The Perjury Counts Are Improperly Joined Under Rule 8(a) and Must Be Severed\n\nThe Perjury Counts (Counts Five and Six) were improperly joined and should be severed from the Mann Act Counts (Counts One through Four) as a matter of law. The Perjury Counts and the Mann Act Counts are entirely separate offenses that involve different time periods, different alleged victims, and different substantive charges. The Mann Act Counts are confined, purposefully, to a very narrow time period and allege that Ms. Maxwell enticed and transported minors to engage in illegal sexual activity from 1994 to 1997. Indictment ¶¶ 9, 13, 15, 19. The Perjury Counts allege that Ms. Maxwell purportedly made false statements in 2016 in a civil defamation action that concerned allegations of purported sexual abuse in a later time period (1999-2002) for which Ms. Maxwell has never been charged criminally. Id. ¶¶ 21, 23; Ex. A at 3-5. The plaintiff in the defamation action, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, is not one of the three accusers referred to in the Mann Act Counts. Similarly, the people we believe to be the three",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 120 Filed 01/25/21 Page 10 of 19",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Prejudice sufficient to justify severance under Rule 14 may exist when: (1) the defendant might become embarrassed or confounded in presenting separate defenses, (2) the jury might use evidence of one of the crimes charged to infer a criminal disposition to commit the other crime or crimes charged, or (3) the jury might cumulate evidence of the various crimes charged to find guilt on a count, which if considered separately, it would not so find. Halper, 590 F.2d at 440 (citing Drew v. United States, 331 F.2d 85, 88 (D.C. Cir. 1964)); United States v. Chevalier, 776 F. Supp. 853, 857 (D. Vt. 1991) (citing United States v. Lewis, 626 F.2d 940, 945 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). The decision to sever is “committed to the sound discretion of the district court” and is “virtually unreviewable” on appeal. Ramos, 2009 WL 1619912, at *1; Burke, 789 F. Supp. 2d at 398.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ANALYSIS",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. The Perjury Counts Are Improperly Joined Under Rule 8(a) and Must Be Severed",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Perjury Counts (Counts Five and Six) were improperly joined and should be severed from the Mann Act Counts (Counts One through Four) as a matter of law. The Perjury Counts and the Mann Act Counts are entirely separate offenses that involve different time periods, different alleged victims, and different substantive charges. The Mann Act Counts are confined, purposefully, to a very narrow time period and allege that Ms. Maxwell enticed and transported minors to engage in illegal sexual activity from 1994 to 1997. Indictment ¶¶ 9, 13, 15, 19. The Perjury Counts allege that Ms. Maxwell purportedly made false statements in 2016 in a civil defamation action that concerned allegations of purported sexual abuse in a later time period (1999-2002) for which Ms. Maxwell has never been charged criminally. Id. ¶¶ 21, 23; Ex. A at 3-5. The plaintiff in the defamation action, Virginia Roberts Giuffre, is not one of the three accusers referred to in the Mann Act Counts. Similarly, the people we believe to be the three",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002288",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Virginia Roberts Giuffre"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "D.C. Cir.",
      "D. Vt."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "01/25/21",
      "1994",
      "1997",
      "2016",
      "1999",
      "2002"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 120",
      "Rule 14",
      "Rule 8(a)",
      "Counts One through Four",
      "Counts Five and Six"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 10 of 19."
}