{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "122",
    "date": "01/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 122 Filed 01/25/21 Page 6 of 9\n\nAPPLICATION OF THE MULTIFACTOR TEST1\nParagraph 14 of the Superseding Indictment (the first paragraph in Count Three)\nincorporates by reference all of the factual allegations made in Count One. The government has,\ntherefore, based Count Three on the exact same factual allegations as Count One, rendering the\ntwo counts clones of one another. The commonality between these counts is complete and fatal\nto one of the alleged conspiracies.\n\nI. The overlap of participants.\nThe alleged co-conspirators, Epstein and Maxwell, are identical. See Indictment ¶¶ 9 and\n15. The accusers are identical. See id. ¶¶ 7 and 17.\n\nII. The overlap of time.\nThe time period of the alleged conspiracies, 1994 to 1997, is identical. See id. ¶¶ 1 and 15.\n\nIII. Similarity of operation.\nThe government claims, in paragraph 2 of Count One, that the operation was a “scheme\nto abuse minor victims” and that Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein “enticed and caused minor\nvictims to travel to Epstein’s residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and\nintended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse.” Id. ¶ 2. This is the\nidentical “scheme” alleged, first by reference, and then explicitly, in Count Three: “Minor\nVictim-1 was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at\nthe New York Residence in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55.” Id. ¶ 17(b).\n\n1 The first factor, an analysis of the criminal offenses charged in “successive indictments” is\ninapplicable here because Ms. Maxwell has been charged with two § 371 conspiracies in the same\nindictment. The multifactor test, however, remains applicable. See, e.g., United States v. Cooper, 886\nF3d. 146, 155 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (appellate court applied the Second Circuit multifactor test to two\nconspiracies charged in the same indictment and determined that the charges were multiplicitous,\nremanding the case to the district court with directions to vacate one of the convictions).\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00002305",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 122 Filed 01/25/21 Page 6 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "APPLICATION OF THE MULTIFACTOR TEST1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Paragraph 14 of the Superseding Indictment (the first paragraph in Count Three)\nincorporates by reference all of the factual allegations made in Count One. The government has,\ntherefore, based Count Three on the exact same factual allegations as Count One, rendering the\ntwo counts clones of one another. The commonality between these counts is complete and fatal\nto one of the alleged conspiracies.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. The overlap of participants.\nThe alleged co-conspirators, Epstein and Maxwell, are identical. See Indictment ¶¶ 9 and\n15. The accusers are identical. See id. ¶¶ 7 and 17.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. The overlap of time.\nThe time period of the alleged conspiracies, 1994 to 1997, is identical. See id. ¶¶ 1 and 15.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. Similarity of operation.\nThe government claims, in paragraph 2 of Count One, that the operation was a “scheme\nto abuse minor victims” and that Ms. Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein “enticed and caused minor\nvictims to travel to Epstein’s residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and\nintended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse.” Id. ¶ 2. This is the\nidentical “scheme” alleged, first by reference, and then explicitly, in Count Three: “Minor\nVictim-1 was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at\nthe New York Residence in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55.” Id. ¶ 17(b).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 The first factor, an analysis of the criminal offenses charged in “successive indictments” is\ninapplicable here because Ms. Maxwell has been charged with two § 371 conspiracies in the same\nindictment. The multifactor test, however, remains applicable. See, e.g., United States v. Cooper, 886\nF3d. 146, 155 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (appellate court applied the Second Circuit multifactor test to two\nconspiracies charged in the same indictment and determined that the charges were multiplicitous,\nremanding the case to the district court with directions to vacate one of the convictions).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3\nDOJ-OGR-00002305",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "01/25/21",
      "1994",
      "1997"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 122",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002305"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the application of the multifactor test to determine whether two counts in the indictment are multiplicitous. The document includes references to specific paragraphs in the indictment and cites a relevant case law."
}