{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "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 14 of 19\n\nabout an alleged conspiracy from 1999-2002 were in fact lies, even though the Mann Act Counts have nothing to do with Giuffre and are based on an entirely separate time period. The jury will also need to be instructed on the elements of civil defamation and the various defenses, and they will need to evaluate whether the alleged perjurious statements were material to the defamation action. At the time the defamation case was dismissed, more than 50 substantive motions were pending before the District Court. Resolution of the materiality question would necessarily involve adjudicating those motions. Accordingly, joining the Perjury Counts would substantially lengthen the trial and unnecessarily complicate the factual issues put before the jury; it would not serve the goals of trial efficiency and judicial economy, which joinder is supposed to promote.\nSee Turoff, 853 F.2d at 1042-43; Werner, 620 F.2d at 928; Halper, 590 F.2d at 430.\n\nA joint trial with the Perjury Counts would also substantially prejudice Ms. Maxwell because it would necessarily introduce allegations of purported sex abuse from 1999-2002 for which Ms. Maxwell has never been charged criminally and which is well outside of the time period alleged in the Mann Act Counts. The Palm Beach Police Department thoroughly investigated allegations of Epstein's sexual abuse in the early-mid 2000s and did not find any evidence against Ms. Maxwell. The documents produced in discovery show that none of the more than 30 alleged victims who were interviewed in that investigation testified that they met, talked to, or identified Ms. Maxwell as someone involved with Epstein's alleged scheme.\nMoreover, had the government credited Ms. Giuffre's allegations against Ms. Maxwell, it would no doubt have charged Ms. Maxwell in the 2019 indictment, which charged Epstein alone with sex trafficking offenses from 2002-2005. It did not. Allowing the government to introduce purported evidence of an uncharged and unsubstantiated conspiracy with Epstein through the vehicle of the Perjury Counts would be extremely prejudicial and create a substantial risk that the\n\n10\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002292",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 120 Filed 01/25/21 Page 14 of 19",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "about an alleged conspiracy from 1999-2002 were in fact lies, even though the Mann Act Counts have nothing to do with Giuffre and are based on an entirely separate time period. The jury will also need to be instructed on the elements of civil defamation and the various defenses, and they will need to evaluate whether the alleged perjurious statements were material to the defamation action. At the time the defamation case was dismissed, more than 50 substantive motions were pending before the District Court. Resolution of the materiality question would necessarily involve adjudicating those motions. Accordingly, joining the Perjury Counts would substantially lengthen the trial and unnecessarily complicate the factual issues put before the jury; it would not serve the goals of trial efficiency and judicial economy, which joinder is supposed to promote.\nSee Turoff, 853 F.2d at 1042-43; Werner, 620 F.2d at 928; Halper, 590 F.2d at 430.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A joint trial with the Perjury Counts would also substantially prejudice Ms. Maxwell because it would necessarily introduce allegations of purported sex abuse from 1999-2002 for which Ms. Maxwell has never been charged criminally and which is well outside of the time period alleged in the Mann Act Counts. The Palm Beach Police Department thoroughly investigated allegations of Epstein's sexual abuse in the early-mid 2000s and did not find any evidence against Ms. Maxwell. The documents produced in discovery show that none of the more than 30 alleged victims who were interviewed in that investigation testified that they met, talked to, or identified Ms. Maxwell as someone involved with Epstein's alleged scheme.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Moreover, had the government credited Ms. Giuffre's allegations against Ms. Maxwell, it would no doubt have charged Ms. Maxwell in the 2019 indictment, which charged Epstein alone with sex trafficking offenses from 2002-2005. It did not. Allowing the government to introduce purported evidence of an uncharged and unsubstantiated conspiracy with Epstein through the vehicle of the Perjury Counts would be extremely prejudicial and create a substantial risk that the",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002292",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Giuffre",
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Palm Beach Police Department"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "1999-2002",
      "2002-2005",
      "2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 120",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002292"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, discussing the potential prejudice of joining perjury counts with other charges."
}