{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "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 2 of 69\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nPRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 1\nA. The True Purpose of a Motion in Limine ................................................................................................ 1\nB. Advisory Rulings are Not Appropriate Here ............................................................................................ 2\nC. The Court Should Reject the Government’s Attempts to Preview any Defense Case or Cross Examination .................................................................................................................................................... 4\nI. THE GOVERNMENT’S PSEUDONYM TACTIC IS UNNECESSARY, UNWORKABLE, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THIS CASE ............................................................................................................................ 4\nA. ................................................................................................................................................................... 5\n1. ................................................................................................................................................................ 5\n2. ................................................................................................................................................................ 10\n3. ................................................................................................................................................................ 12\nB. The Government Has Failed to Carry its Burden to Establish the Extraordinary Need to Use Fake Names .... 15\nC. ................................................................................................................................................................. 17\n1. ................................................................................................................................................................ 17\n2. ................................................................................................................................................................ 18\nD. ................................................................................................................................................................... 19\nE. No Legitimate Safety Concerns are Present .............................................................................................. 19\nF. ................................................................................................................................................................... 20\nReference to Her Should Be Excluded -- Eliminating the Need for a Pseudonym or Other Artifice .................... 20\nG. ................................................................................................................................................................... 20\n, Hiding Their Identities and Those of Related Witnesses Serves No Legitimate Purpose .................................... 20\nH. The Use of Fake Names is Unfairly Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell .................................................................... 20\nI. SUPPRESSION OF THE EXHIBITS IS CONTRARY TO WELL-ESTABLISHED SECOND CIRCUIT LAW ............................................................................................................................ 23\nII. PRE-TRIAL RULING ON “PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS” INAPPROPRIATE23\nA. The 2014 Amendments Did Not Change the Grounds for Which Prior Consistent Statements May Be Admitted .................................................................................................................................................... 24\nB. Substantial Limits Remain on Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements ................................................... 25\ni\nDOJ-OGR-00005457",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 382 Filed 10/29/21 Page 2 of 69",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "TABLE OF CONTENTS",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 1\nA. The True Purpose of a Motion in Limine ................................................................................................ 1\nB. Advisory Rulings are Not Appropriate Here ............................................................................................ 2\nC. The Court Should Reject the Government’s Attempts to Preview any Defense Case or Cross Examination .................................................................................................................................................... 4\nI. THE GOVERNMENT’S PSEUDONYM TACTIC IS UNNECESSARY, UNWORKABLE, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THIS CASE ............................................................................................................................ 4\nA. ................................................................................................................................................................... 5\n1. ................................................................................................................................................................ 5\n2. ................................................................................................................................................................ 10\n3. ................................................................................................................................................................ 12\nB. The Government Has Failed to Carry its Burden to Establish the Extraordinary Need to Use Fake Names .... 15\nC. ................................................................................................................................................................. 17\n1. ................................................................................................................................................................ 17\n2. ................................................................................................................................................................ 18\nD. ................................................................................................................................................................... 19\nE. No Legitimate Safety Concerns are Present .............................................................................................. 19\nF. ................................................................................................................................................................... 20\nReference to Her Should Be Excluded -- Eliminating the Need for a Pseudonym or Other Artifice .................... 20\nG. ................................................................................................................................................................... 20\n, Hiding Their Identities and Those of Related Witnesses Serves No Legitimate Purpose .................................... 20\nH. The Use of Fake Names is Unfairly Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell .................................................................... 20\nI. SUPPRESSION OF THE EXHIBITS IS CONTRARY TO WELL-ESTABLISHED SECOND CIRCUIT LAW ............................................................................................................................ 23\nII. PRE-TRIAL RULING ON “PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS” INAPPROPRIATE23\nA. The 2014 Amendments Did Not Change the Grounds for Which Prior Consistent Statements May Be Admitted .................................................................................................................................................... 24\nB. Substantial Limits Remain on Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements ................................................... 25",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "i\nDOJ-OGR-00005457",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "2014"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 382",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005457"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a table of contents. Some section titles and content are redacted."
}