{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "54",
    "document_number": "410-1",
    "date": "11/04/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 410-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 54 of 93 alleged to have taken place involving Ms. Maxwell the defendant or in her presence. You may consider this evidence in determining whether the Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt Ms. Maxwell's the defendant's knowledge of the unlawful purposes of the conspiracy. It is for you to determine whether the Government has established beyond a reasonable doubt that such knowledge and intent on the part of Ms. Maxwell existed. It is important for you to know that Ms. Maxwell's participation in the conspiracy must be established by independent evidence of her own acts or statements, as well as those of the other alleged co-conspirators, and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. It is not necessary for the Government to show that Ms. Maxwell a defendant was fully informed as to all the details of the conspiracy in order for you to infer knowledge on her part. To have guilty knowledge, Ms. Maxwell a defendant need not have known the full extent of the conspiracy or all of the activities of all of its participants. It is not even necessary for a defendant to know every other member of the conspiracy. In addition, the duration and extent of Ms. Maxwell's the defendant's participation has no bearing on the issue of her guilt. She need not have joined the conspiracy at the outset. Ms. Maxwell The defendant may have joined it for any purpose at any time in its progress, and she will be held responsible for all that was done before she joined and all that was done during the conspiracy's existence while she was a member. Each member of a conspiracy may perform separate and distinct acts and may perform them at different times. Indeed, a single act may be enough to bring one within the membership of the conspiracy, provided that Ms. Maxwell the defendant was aware of the conspiracy and knowingly associated herself with its criminal aims. It does not matter whether Ms. Maxwell's the defendant's role in the conspiracy may have been more limited than or different in nature or in length of time from the roles of her co-conspirators. Commented [CE72]: The additional language is consistent with Sand and the Court's recent instructions on this issue See Sand, Instr 19-6; United States v. Pizarro, 17 Cr 151 (AJN) Commented [RA(73R72]: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Court has not used this language in other conspiracy charges See, e.g., United States v. Lebedev, 15 Cr 769 (AJN); United States v. Jones, 16 Cr 554 (AJN) The first sentence is an unnecessary repetition of the instructions on the role of the jury and the burden of proof That sentence also does not appear in Sand The second sentence is confusing because it suggests that the Government must establish the defendant's participation through her own acts and statements, which is a principle that sentence is intended to repudiate See Sand, Instr 19-6 (\"Membership in the conspiracy must be proved by independent evidence of the defendant's own acts and statements Until recently, it was standard practice to charge the jury that a defendant's membership in the conspiracy could only be proven by the defendant's words and actions This view was repudiated by the Supreme Court in Bourjaily v. United States . \") DOJ-OGR-00006120",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 410-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 54 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "alleged to have taken place involving Ms. Maxwell the defendant or in her presence. You may consider this evidence in determining whether the Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt Ms. Maxwell's the defendant's knowledge of the unlawful purposes of the conspiracy. It is for you to determine whether the Government has established beyond a reasonable doubt that such knowledge and intent on the part of Ms. Maxwell existed. It is important for you to know that Ms. Maxwell's participation in the conspiracy must be established by independent evidence of her own acts or statements, as well as those of the other alleged co-conspirators, and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. It is not necessary for the Government to show that Ms. Maxwell a defendant was fully informed as to all the details of the conspiracy in order for you to infer knowledge on her part. To have guilty knowledge, Ms. Maxwell a defendant need not have known the full extent of the conspiracy or all of the activities of all of its participants. It is not even necessary for a defendant to know every other member of the conspiracy. In addition, the duration and extent of Ms. Maxwell's the defendant's participation has no bearing on the issue of her guilt. She need not have joined the conspiracy at the outset. Ms. Maxwell The defendant may have joined it for any purpose at any time in its progress, and she will be held responsible for all that was done before she joined and all that was done during the conspiracy's existence while she was a member. Each member of a conspiracy may perform separate and distinct acts and may perform them at different times. Indeed, a single act may be enough to bring one within the membership of the conspiracy, provided that Ms. Maxwell the defendant was aware of the conspiracy and knowingly associated herself with its criminal aims. It does not matter whether Ms. Maxwell's the defendant's role in the conspiracy may have been more limited than or different in nature or in length of time from the roles of her co-conspirators.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [CE72]: The additional language is consistent with Sand and the Court's recent instructions on this issue See Sand, Instr 19-6; United States v. Pizarro, 17 Cr 151 (AJN) Commented [RA(73R72]: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Court has not used this language in other conspiracy charges See, e.g., United States v. Lebedev, 15 Cr 769 (AJN); United States v. Jones, 16 Cr 554 (AJN) The first sentence is an unnecessary repetition of the instructions on the role of the jury and the burden of proof That sentence also does not appear in Sand The second sentence is confusing because it suggests that the Government must establish the defendant's participation through her own acts and statements, which is a principle that sentence is intended to repudiate See Sand, Instr 19-6 (\"Membership in the conspiracy must be proved by independent evidence of the defendant's own acts and statements Until recently, it was standard practice to charge the jury that a defendant's membership in the conspiracy could only be proven by the defendant's words and actions This view was repudiated by the Supreme Court in Bourjaily v. United States . \")",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006120",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Pizarro",
      "Lebedev",
      "Jones",
      "Bourjaily"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Supreme Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "410-1",
      "17 Cr 151",
      "15 Cr 769",
      "16 Cr 554",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006120"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text includes legal language and references to other court cases. There are handwritten comments in the margin, suggesting that the document has been reviewed and annotated by someone."
}