{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "78",
    "document_number": "452",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452 Filed 11/12/21 Page 78 of 84\n\nThe defendant moves to preclude any trial participants from using the word \"victim\" to refer to any of the Minor Victims. The Government expects that it will use the word \"victim,\" particularly in jury addresses, but such use is not improper vouching or prejudicial to the defense. The Government also expects its expert to use the word \"victim,\" but she will testify about victims generally and not any victims in this case specifically. The Government does not otherwise expect its witnesses to use the word \"victim.\" To the extent they do, however, it is not prejudicial to the defense.20\n\nThe defendant cites no federal case that has accepted its argument. Nor does this argument make sense. The erroneous premise in the defense argument is that referring to someone as a \"victim\" \"necessarily conveys the speaker's opinion that a crime in fact occurred and that the accusers are credible.\" (Def. Mot. 12 at 1). That is incorrect. The Government's references to \"victims\" are part of its theory of the case. Use of that term in a jury address is not an expression of counsel's opinion; it is the Government's litigating position, just like referencing someone as the \"shooter\" in a shooting case or the \"dealer\" in a narcotics case. See United States v. Arias-Javier, 392 F. App'x 896, 898 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (\"The prosecutor is permitted vigorously to argue for the jury to find its witnesses credible as long as it does not link its own credibility to that of the witness or imply the existence of extraneous proof supporting the witness's\n\n20 Notably, the defense motion is entirely premised on the notion that the parties disagree about whether the Minor Victims are in fact victims of any crime. If the defense concedes at any point that the Minor Victims are victims of any crime—for example, if the defendant concedes the victims were abused by Epstein but disclaims knowledge or involvement—their argument in support of this motion collapses entirely. (Def. Mot. 12 at 1 (contrasting this case with cases in which \"there is no dispute that the person was a victim of something\")) .\n\n77\nDOJ-OGR-00006786",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 452 Filed 11/12/21 Page 78 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant moves to preclude any trial participants from using the word \"victim\" to refer to any of the Minor Victims. The Government expects that it will use the word \"victim,\" particularly in jury addresses, but such use is not improper vouching or prejudicial to the defense. The Government also expects its expert to use the word \"victim,\" but she will testify about victims generally and not any victims in this case specifically. The Government does not otherwise expect its witnesses to use the word \"victim.\" To the extent they do, however, it is not prejudicial to the defense.20",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant cites no federal case that has accepted its argument. Nor does this argument make sense. The erroneous premise in the defense argument is that referring to someone as a \"victim\" \"necessarily conveys the speaker's opinion that a crime in fact occurred and that the accusers are credible.\" (Def. Mot. 12 at 1). That is incorrect. The Government's references to \"victims\" are part of its theory of the case. Use of that term in a jury address is not an expression of counsel's opinion; it is the Government's litigating position, just like referencing someone as the \"shooter\" in a shooting case or the \"dealer\" in a narcotics case. See United States v. Arias-Javier, 392 F. App'x 896, 898 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (\"The prosecutor is permitted vigorously to argue for the jury to find its witnesses credible as long as it does not link its own credibility to that of the witness or imply the existence of extraneous proof supporting the witness's",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20 Notably, the defense motion is entirely premised on the notion that the parties disagree about whether the Minor Victims are in fact victims of any crime. If the defense concedes at any point that the Minor Victims are victims of any crime—for example, if the defendant concedes the victims were abused by Epstein but disclaims knowledge or involvement—their argument in support of this motion collapses entirely. (Def. Mot. 12 at 1 (contrasting this case with cases in which \"there is no dispute that the person was a victim of something\")) .",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "77",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006786",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 452",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006786",
      "392 F. App'x 896",
      "2010"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}