{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "382",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 382 Filed 10/29/21 Page 3 of 69\n\nIII. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT ABOUT PRIOR CHARGING DECISIONS AND THE COURSE OF PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS IS ADMISSIBLE....................................................................................................................28\nA. The NPA Is Admissible to Show the Bias and Interest of................................................................................................................29\nB. Evidence and Argument About the NPA, Prior Charging Decisions, and the Death of Jeffrey Epstein Is Admissible to Challenge the Thoroughness and Good Faith of the New York Investigation....................................................................................................................32\n1. Applicable Law ................................................................................................................32\n2. Discussion.......................................................................................................................32\nC. Evidence and Argument About the Fact that Ms. Maxwell Was Not Charged by the USAO-SDFL Is Relevant to................................................................................................................36\n1. Applicable Law ................................................................................................................36\n2. Discussion.......................................................................................................................37\nD. Evidence and Argument About the Scope, Timeline, and Investigative Steps of Prior Investigations Is Admissible................................................................................................................40\nE. A Proffer Regarding the Basis for the Case Agents' Testimony is Unnecessary and Unwarranted................................................................................................................41\nIV. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT ABOUT ITS MOTIVES FOR PROSECUTING MS. MAXWELL IS MISGUIDED AND MERITLESS................................................................................................................42\nV. A PRE-TRIAL BAN ON CHALLENGES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES IS UNSUPPORTED LEGALLY OR FACTUALLY................................................................................................................43\nVI. CERTAIN EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT MINOR VICTIMS CONSENTED TO SEXUAL ABUSE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE................................................................................................................46\nVII. UNFOUNDED REQUEST TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S GOOD ACTS SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DENIED................................................................................................................49\nA. The Government Cites No Authority for Requiring Pre-trial Notice of Such Evidence................................................................................................................50\nB. The Referenced Evidence Demonstrates that Jeffrey Epstein Committed Acts of Abuse -- Without Ms. Maxwell's Knowledge or Participation – May Be Relevant to Existence of Conspiracy or Knowledge of Its Illegal Objectives................................................................................................................51\nVIII. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO LIMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF MS. MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD BE DENIED AT THIS TIME................................................................................................................54\nIX. MS. MAXWELL'S COUNSEL UNDERSTANDS AND WILL FOLLOW THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PROHIBITION AGAINST ARGUMENT FOR JURY NULLIFICATION – RENDERING THIS MOTION MOOT................................................................................................................55\nX. REQUEST TO PREVIEW DEFENSE'S EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DENIED................................................................................................................56\niiDOJ-OGR-00005458",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 382 Filed 10/29/21 Page 3 of 69",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT ABOUT PRIOR CHARGING DECISIONS AND THE COURSE OF PRIOR INVESTIGATIONS IS ADMISSIBLE....................................................................................................................28",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. The NPA Is Admissible to Show the Bias and Interest of................................................................................................................29",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Evidence and Argument About the NPA, Prior Charging Decisions, and the Death of Jeffrey Epstein Is Admissible to Challenge the Thoroughness and Good Faith of the New York Investigation....................................................................................................................32",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. Applicable Law ................................................................................................................32\n2. Discussion.......................................................................................................................32",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. Evidence and Argument About the Fact that Ms. Maxwell Was Not Charged by the USAO-SDFL Is Relevant to................................................................................................................36",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. Applicable Law ................................................................................................................36\n2. Discussion.......................................................................................................................37",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "D. Evidence and Argument About the Scope, Timeline, and Investigative Steps of Prior Investigations Is Admissible................................................................................................................40",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "E. A Proffer Regarding the Basis for the Case Agents' Testimony is Unnecessary and Unwarranted................................................................................................................41",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "IV. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT ABOUT ITS MOTIVES FOR PROSECUTING MS. MAXWELL IS MISGUIDED AND MERITLESS................................................................................................................42",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "V. A PRE-TRIAL BAN ON CHALLENGES TO THE CREDIBILITY OF NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES IS UNSUPPORTED LEGALLY OR FACTUALLY................................................................................................................43",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "VI. CERTAIN EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT MINOR VICTIMS CONSENTED TO SEXUAL ABUSE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE................................................................................................................46",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "VII. UNFOUNDED REQUEST TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF MS. MAXWELL'S GOOD ACTS SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DENIED................................................................................................................49",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. The Government Cites No Authority for Requiring Pre-trial Notice of Such Evidence................................................................................................................50",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The Referenced Evidence Demonstrates that Jeffrey Epstein Committed Acts of Abuse -- Without Ms. Maxwell's Knowledge or Participation – May Be Relevant to Existence of Conspiracy or Knowledge of Its Illegal Objectives................................................................................................................51",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "VIII. THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO LIMIT THE INTRODUCTION OF MS. MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS IS PREMATURE AND SHOULD BE DENIED AT THIS TIME................................................................................................................54",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "IX. MS. MAXWELL'S COUNSEL UNDERSTANDS AND WILL FOLLOW THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PROHIBITION AGAINST ARGUMENT FOR JURY NULLIFICATION – RENDERING THIS MOTION MOOT................................................................................................................55",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "X. REQUEST TO PREVIEW DEFENSE'S EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DENIED................................................................................................................56",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ii",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005458",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO-SDFL"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "382",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005458"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, with various sections and subsections discussing the admissibility of evidence and other legal matters. The text is mostly printed, with some redacted sections. The document is page 3 of 69."
}