{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "document_number": "494",
    "date": "11/22/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 494 Filed 11/22/21 Page 8 of 12\n\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nNovember 11, 2021\nPage 8\nallegedly had a motive to obtain young women, but not underaged girls, to satisfy Epstein.\nAccuser-3's evidence is simply not probative of any proper 404(b) purpose.\nFurthermore, admitting Accuser-3's evidence for these purposes would conflict with the Court's preliminary rulings at the November 10th conference concerning the permissible scope of Accuser-3's testimony. The Court recognized that allowing Accuser-3 to testify about her sexual acts with Epstein would create a significant risk that the jury will convict Ms. Maxwell on an improper premise that these sex acts were illegal. Admitting Accuser-3's testimony to prove Ms. Maxwell's knowledge, intent, motive, etc. would be at odds with that ruling. For Accuser-3's testimony to be admitted as proof that Ms. Maxwell knew that Epstein's massages were sexualized, for example, Accuser-3 would have to testify that she engaged in sex acts with Epstein during her massages. The same is true if her testimony is offered to show Ms. Maxwell's motive or intent, or the modus operandi of the charged conspiracies. Accordingly, Accuser-3's evidence should not be admitted under Rule 404(b).\nFinally, whatever minimal relevance (if any) that Accuser-3's testimony may have as 404(b) evidence is dwarfed by the significant prejudice Ms. Maxwell will suffer if it is admitted.\nThe government has already advised the Court and the defense repeatedly that Accuser-3 feels that she was \"sexually abused\" by Epstein and that her sexual contact with Epstein was \"unwanted and traumatic.\" November 5 Ltr. at 12; see also 11/1/2021 Tr. 75:23-76:01. The government has also cautioned that Accuser-3 will likely become emotional and upset if she allowed to describe these events to the jury. The defense does not doubt that this is true. That is precisely why the Court must exclude Accuser-3's evidence under Rule 403. As the Court has already recognized, such\n2049808.1\nDOJ-OGR-00007444",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 494 Filed 11/22/21 Page 8 of 12",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nNovember 11, 2021\nPage 8",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "allegedly had a motive to obtain young women, but not underaged girls, to satisfy Epstein.\nAccuser-3's evidence is simply not probative of any proper 404(b) purpose.\nFurthermore, admitting Accuser-3's evidence for these purposes would conflict with the Court's preliminary rulings at the November 10th conference concerning the permissible scope of Accuser-3's testimony. The Court recognized that allowing Accuser-3 to testify about her sexual acts with Epstein would create a significant risk that the jury will convict Ms. Maxwell on an improper premise that these sex acts were illegal. Admitting Accuser-3's testimony to prove Ms. Maxwell's knowledge, intent, motive, etc. would be at odds with that ruling. For Accuser-3's testimony to be admitted as proof that Ms. Maxwell knew that Epstein's massages were sexualized, for example, Accuser-3 would have to testify that she engaged in sex acts with Epstein during her massages. The same is true if her testimony is offered to show Ms. Maxwell's motive or intent, or the modus operandi of the charged conspiracies. Accordingly, Accuser-3's evidence should not be admitted under Rule 404(b).\nFinally, whatever minimal relevance (if any) that Accuser-3's testimony may have as 404(b) evidence is dwarfed by the significant prejudice Ms. Maxwell will suffer if it is admitted.\nThe government has already advised the Court and the defense repeatedly that Accuser-3 feels that she was \"sexually abused\" by Epstein and that her sexual contact with Epstein was \"unwanted and traumatic.\" November 5 Ltr. at 12; see also 11/1/2021 Tr. 75:23-76:01. The government has also cautioned that Accuser-3 will likely become emotional and upset if she allowed to describe these events to the jury. The defense does not doubt that this is true. That is precisely why the Court must exclude Accuser-3's evidence under Rule 403. As the Court has already recognized, such",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2049808.1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007444",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Accuser-3"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "November 11, 2021",
      "November 10",
      "November 5",
      "11/1/2021",
      "11/22/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 494",
      "2049808.1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007444"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, discussing the admissibility of testimony from Accuser-3 regarding Jeffrey Epstein."
}