{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "document_number": "207",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 8 of 34\n\nC. Maxwell is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing\n\nIn the alternative to dismissing the indictment, Maxwell requests that the Court conduct an evidentiary hearing as to the parties' intent in the NPA. The Court finds no basis to do so.\n\nThe cases Maxwell cites where courts held hearings on the scope of a plea agreement mostly involved oral agreements where there was no written record of the full set of terms reached by the parties. All of them involved defendants with first-hand knowledge of negotiations who claimed prosecutors breached an oral promise. \"An oral agreement greatly increases the potential for disputes such as . . . a failure to agree on the existence, let alone the terms, of the deal.\" United States v. Aleman, 286 F.3d 86, 90 (2d Cir. 2002). Thus, an evidentiary hearing may be necessary to determine the terms of an agreement never committed to writing. This is no such case. The NPA's terms are clear. Beyond the NPA itself, an extensive OPR report details its negotiation history. No record evidence suggests that prosecutors promised Epstein anything beyond what was spelled out in writing. The Court agrees with the Government that Maxwell's request for a hearing rests on mere conjecture.\n\nFor the same reason, the Court will not order the discovery on the NPA. In any case, it appears that the Government has already produced two of the documents Maxwell seeks in her motion—the OPR report and notes mentioned in a privilege log. Of course, the Government's disclosure obligations would require it to disclose to Maxwell any exculpatory evidence or evidence material to preparing the defense, including any evidence supporting a defense under the NPA. The Government shall confirm in writing within one week whether it views any evidence supporting Maxwell's interpretation of the NPA as material it is required to disclose, and, if so, whether it has disclosed any and all such evidence in its possession.\n\n8\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003682",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 8 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. Maxwell is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In the alternative to dismissing the indictment, Maxwell requests that the Court conduct an evidentiary hearing as to the parties' intent in the NPA. The Court finds no basis to do so.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The cases Maxwell cites where courts held hearings on the scope of a plea agreement mostly involved oral agreements where there was no written record of the full set of terms reached by the parties. All of them involved defendants with first-hand knowledge of negotiations who claimed prosecutors breached an oral promise. \"An oral agreement greatly increases the potential for disputes such as . . . a failure to agree on the existence, let alone the terms, of the deal.\" United States v. Aleman, 286 F.3d 86, 90 (2d Cir. 2002). Thus, an evidentiary hearing may be necessary to determine the terms of an agreement never committed to writing. This is no such case. The NPA's terms are clear. Beyond the NPA itself, an extensive OPR report details its negotiation history. No record evidence suggests that prosecutors promised Epstein anything beyond what was spelled out in writing. The Court agrees with the Government that Maxwell's request for a hearing rests on mere conjecture.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For the same reason, the Court will not order the discovery on the NPA. In any case, it appears that the Government has already produced two of the documents Maxwell seeks in her motion—the OPR report and notes mentioned in a privilege log. Of course, the Government's disclosure obligations would require it to disclose to Maxwell any exculpatory evidence or evidence material to preparing the defense, including any evidence supporting a defense under the NPA. The Government shall confirm in writing within one week whether it views any evidence supporting Maxwell's interpretation of the NPA as material it is required to disclose, and, if so, whether it has disclosed any and all such evidence in its possession.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003682",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Aleman"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "2002"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 207",
      "286 F.3d 86",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003682"
    ]
  },
  "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 8 of 34."
}