{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "50 of 54",
    "document_number": "438",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 438 Filed 11/12/21 Page 50 of 54\n\nX. The Court Should Preclude the Defense from Making the Baseless Argument that the Defendant Was a Victim of Jeffrey Epstein\n\nIn order for counsel to ask questions or make argument about a fact, counsel must have a good faith basis for advancing that fact. See, e.g., United States v. Figueroa, 548 F.3d 222, 227 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Although counsel may explore certain areas of inquiry in a criminal trial without full knowledge of the answer to anticipated questions, he must, when confronted with a demand for an offer of proof, provide some good faith basis for questioning that alleges adverse facts.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The Government’s years-long investigation has not developed any evidence that the defendant was victimized in any way by Jeffrey Epstein.\n\nThe Government has also met with the defense many times, both prior to presenting this case to a grand jury and when conferring during the pendency of this matter. During one of those meetings, defense counsel made a variety of factual assertions in order to dissuade the Government from charging the defendant. At no time has the defense represented to the Government that Epstein victimized the defendant in any manner. In preparing these motions, the Government asked the defense whether they plan to offer such evidence at trial, and defense counsel declined to answer.11\n\n11 As set forth in the Government’s cover letter, the Government seeks redaction of this section. Were this argument discussed in public filings, it would likely result in significant publicity, which would be highly prejudicial to the Government if in fact there is no good-faith basis for the argument, as the Government suspects will be the case. Accordingly, the Court should permit redaction and sealing of this section at least until the conclusion of trial.\n\n49\n\nDOJ-OGR-00006410",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 438 Filed 11/12/21 Page 50 of 54",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "X. The Court Should Preclude the Defense from Making the Baseless Argument that the Defendant Was a Victim of Jeffrey Epstein",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In order for counsel to ask questions or make argument about a fact, counsel must have a good faith basis for advancing that fact. See, e.g., United States v. Figueroa, 548 F.3d 222, 227 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Although counsel may explore certain areas of inquiry in a criminal trial without full knowledge of the answer to anticipated questions, he must, when confronted with a demand for an offer of proof, provide some good faith basis for questioning that alleges adverse facts.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The Government’s years-long investigation has not developed any evidence that the defendant was victimized in any way by Jeffrey Epstein.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government has also met with the defense many times, both prior to presenting this case to a grand jury and when conferring during the pendency of this matter. During one of those meetings, defense counsel made a variety of factual assertions in order to dissuade the Government from charging the defendant. At no time has the defense represented to the Government that Epstein victimized the defendant in any manner. In preparing these motions, the Government asked the defense whether they plan to offer such evidence at trial, and defense counsel declined to answer.11",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11 As set forth in the Government’s cover letter, the Government seeks redaction of this section. Were this argument discussed in public filings, it would likely result in significant publicity, which would be highly prejudicial to the Government if in fact there is no good-faith basis for the argument, as the Government suspects will be the case. Accordingly, the Court should permit redaction and sealing of this section at least until the conclusion of trial.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "49",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006410",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 438",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006410"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the government's investigation and interactions with the defense. There are no visible redactions or damage on the provided page."
}