{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "22 of 32",
    "document_number": "293",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 22 of 32\n\n1994) (reversal of conviction may be required due to \"prejudicial spillover\" in cases in which the jury relies on inadmissible evidence related to an invalidated count to convict on the remaining counts). Accordingly, the Court must dismiss Counts One and Three as well.\n\nII. Prosecuting Ms. Maxwell on Counts Five and Six Would Violate Her Rights Under the Double Jeopardy Clause.\n\nProsecuting Ms. Maxwell on Counts Five and Six would also violate her rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person shall \"be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.\" U.S. Const., Amend. V. The Clause protects criminal defendants against \"a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal,\" \"a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction,\" and \"multiple punishments for the same offense.\" United States v. Lopez, 356 F.3d 463, 467 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969) overruled on other grounds by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (1989)). The Supreme Court first established the principle that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple punishments for the same offense almost 150 years ago in Ex Parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 (1873), and it is equally important as the protection against a successive prosecution for the same offense.\n\nIf there is anything settled in the jurisprudence of England and America, it is that no man can be twice lawfully punished for the same offense. And ... there has never been any doubt of (this rule's) entire and complete protection of the party when a second punishment is proposed in the same court, on the same facts, for the same statutory offense.\n\n(T)he Constitution was designed as much to prevent the criminal from being twice punished for the same offense as from being twice tried for it.\n\nPearce, 395 U.S. at 717-18 (quoting Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) at 168) (emphasis added).\n\nHere, it is beyond dispute that Epstein was already punished for the offenses covered by the NPA. The NPA states that, in return for an agreement not to prosecute him for the offenses",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 22 of 32",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1994) (reversal of conviction may be required due to \"prejudicial spillover\" in cases in which the jury relies on inadmissible evidence related to an invalidated count to convict on the remaining counts). Accordingly, the Court must dismiss Counts One and Three as well.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. Prosecuting Ms. Maxwell on Counts Five and Six Would Violate Her Rights Under the Double Jeopardy Clause.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Prosecuting Ms. Maxwell on Counts Five and Six would also violate her rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person shall \"be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.\" U.S. Const., Amend. V. The Clause protects criminal defendants against \"a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal,\" \"a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction,\" and \"multiple punishments for the same offense.\" United States v. Lopez, 356 F.3d 463, 467 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969) overruled on other grounds by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (1989)). The Supreme Court first established the principle that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple punishments for the same offense almost 150 years ago in Ex Parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 (1873), and it is equally important as the protection against a successive prosecution for the same offense.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "If there is anything settled in the jurisprudence of England and America, it is that no man can be twice lawfully punished for the same offense. And ... there has never been any doubt of (this rule's) entire and complete protection of the party when a second punishment is proposed in the same court, on the same facts, for the same statutory offense.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(T)he Constitution was designed as much to prevent the criminal from being twice punished for the same offense as from being twice tried for it.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Pearce, 395 U.S. at 717-18 (quoting Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) at 168) (emphasis added).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here, it is beyond dispute that Epstein was already punished for the offenses covered by the NPA. The NPA states that, in return for an agreement not to prosecute him for the offenses",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004287",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "England",
      "America"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "1994",
      "1969",
      "1989",
      "1873",
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 293",
      "Counts One",
      "Counts Three",
      "Counts Five",
      "Counts Six"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the Double Jeopardy Clause and its application to the case. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}