{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "22 of 37",
    "document_number": "600",
    "date": "02/11/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 600 Filed 02/11/22 Page 22 of 37\nMexico, she had denied being sexually abused there. It was not until just before trial, after the government had questioned her about the New Mexico trip in her preparation for trial, that Jane claimed for the first time that she had engaged in sexual activity with Epstein while she was at the ranch. See supra note 1.\nJane's new recollection about the New Mexico trip was disclosed at the eleventh hour and substantially prejudiced Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare her defense. See id. (\"The determination of whether a variance between an indictment and the proof at trial is prejudicial turns on whether the variance infringes on the substantial rights that indictments exist to protect—to inform an accused of the charges against him so that he may prepare his defense and to avoid double jeopardy.\") Because the Mann Act counts as charged in the Indictment were based on a violation of New York law, the defense vigorously litigated the extent to which the government could introduce evidence of sexual activity that occurred in jurisdictions outside of New York in support of the Mann Act counts. As part of that effort, the defense requested limiting instructions with respect to the testimony of Kate and Annie Farmer. The limiting instructions, which were read to the jury immediately before the witnesses began their testimony, specifically instructed the jury that any sexual conduct that Kate or Annie Farmer said occurred with Mr. Epstein \"was not 'illegal sexual activity' as the government has charged in the indictment.\" Tr. 1167:23-1168:2; Tr. 2048:22-2049:1.\nHad the defense been given sufficient notice that Jane would testify that she was sexually abused in New Mexico, we would have litigated this issue before trial and, at the very least, made an application to the Court to give a limiting instruction before the start of Jane's testimony similar to the one given for Annie Farmer, who also testified about a single instance of sexual contact at the ranch in New Mexico when she was 16 years old, which could not have violated\n17\nDOJ-OGR-00008946",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 600 Filed 02/11/22 Page 22 of 37",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Mexico, she had denied being sexually abused there. It was not until just before trial, after the government had questioned her about the New Mexico trip in her preparation for trial, that Jane claimed for the first time that she had engaged in sexual activity with Epstein while she was at the ranch. See supra note 1.\nJane's new recollection about the New Mexico trip was disclosed at the eleventh hour and substantially prejudiced Ms. Maxwell's ability to prepare her defense. See id. (\"The determination of whether a variance between an indictment and the proof at trial is prejudicial turns on whether the variance infringes on the substantial rights that indictments exist to protect—to inform an accused of the charges against him so that he may prepare his defense and to avoid double jeopardy.\") Because the Mann Act counts as charged in the Indictment were based on a violation of New York law, the defense vigorously litigated the extent to which the government could introduce evidence of sexual activity that occurred in jurisdictions outside of New York in support of the Mann Act counts. As part of that effort, the defense requested limiting instructions with respect to the testimony of Kate and Annie Farmer. The limiting instructions, which were read to the jury immediately before the witnesses began their testimony, specifically instructed the jury that any sexual conduct that Kate or Annie Farmer said occurred with Mr. Epstein \"was not 'illegal sexual activity' as the government has charged in the indictment.\" Tr. 1167:23-1168:2; Tr. 2048:22-2049:1.\nHad the defense been given sufficient notice that Jane would testify that she was sexually abused in New Mexico, we would have litigated this issue before trial and, at the very least, made an application to the Court to give a limiting instruction before the start of Jane's testimony similar to the one given for Annie Farmer, who also testified about a single instance of sexual contact at the ranch in New Mexico when she was 16 years old, which could not have violated",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008946",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Kate",
      "Annie Farmer",
      "Mr. Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Mexico",
      "New Mexico",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 600",
      "Tr. 1167:23-1168:2",
      "Tr. 2048:22-2049:1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008946"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to a case involving Epstein and Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}