{ "document_metadata": { "page_number": "2", "document_number": "383", "date": "10/29/21", "document_type": "Court Document", "has_handwriting": false, "has_stamps": false }, "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 383 Filed 10/29/21 Page 2 of 40\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nPRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 3\n\nARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................................... 3\nI. The Court Should Permit Certain Witnesses to Testify Under Pseudonyms or Using First Names, and Permit the Sealing of Related Exhibits ............................... 3\n\nA. Applicable Law ................................................................................................................................ 4\nB. The Minor Victims Retain Significant Privacy Interests ............................................................... 7\n1. Minor Victim-1 ........................................................................................................................... 7\n2. Minor Victim-3 ........................................................................................................................... 10\n3. Minor Victim-4 ........................................................................................................................... 12\n4. Minor Victim-6 ........................................................................................................................... 13\nC. The Government’s Proposal Would Protect Those Privacy Interests ............................................ 14\nD. The Defendant Has No Countervailing Interests at Stake, Much Less a Particularized Need for Disclosure ........................................................................................................................... 16\nE. Sealing Related Exhibits is Entirely Appropriate ......................................................................... 19\nII. The Court Should Resolve Litigation Related to Prior Consistent Statements at the Appropriate Time ............................................................................................................................... 21\nIII. The Court Should Preclude the Defense from Making Improper Arguments and Proffering Irrelevant Evidence .................................................................................................... 22\n\nA. The Court Should Preclude Evidence and Argument about Investigations of the Defendant ............................................................................................................................... 24\nB. Evidence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement is Not Otherwise Admissible for Any Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 29\nC. Evidence that the Defendant was Not Charged by the USAO-SDFL is Irrelevant to Minor Victim-4’s Credibility ........................................................................................................... 31\nD. The Government Should Preclude Testimony from Case Agents About Irrelevant Matters ................................................................................................................................................... 33\nE. The Government’s Alleged Motives Are Irrelevant ........................................................................ 34\nF. The Court Should Preclude Challenges to the Credibility of Individuals Who Are Not Witnesses at Trial ............................................................................................................................... 35\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005556", "text_blocks": [ { "type": "printed", "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 383 Filed 10/29/21 Page 2 of 40", "position": "header" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "TABLE OF CONTENTS", "position": "top" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 3\n\nARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................................... 3\nI. The Court Should Permit Certain Witnesses to Testify Under Pseudonyms or Using First Names, and Permit the Sealing of Related Exhibits ............................... 3\n\nA. Applicable Law ................................................................................................................................ 4\nB. The Minor Victims Retain Significant Privacy Interests ............................................................... 7\n1. Minor Victim-1 ........................................................................................................................... 7\n2. Minor Victim-3 ........................................................................................................................... 10\n3. Minor Victim-4 ........................................................................................................................... 12\n4. Minor Victim-6 ........................................................................................................................... 13\nC. The Government’s Proposal Would Protect Those Privacy Interests ............................................ 14\nD. The Defendant Has No Countervailing Interests at Stake, Much Less a Particularized Need for Disclosure ........................................................................................................................... 16\nE. Sealing Related Exhibits is Entirely Appropriate ......................................................................... 19\nII. The Court Should Resolve Litigation Related to Prior Consistent Statements at the Appropriate Time ............................................................................................................................... 21\nIII. The Court Should Preclude the Defense from Making Improper Arguments and Proffering Irrelevant Evidence .................................................................................................... 22\n\nA. The Court Should Preclude Evidence and Argument about Investigations of the Defendant ............................................................................................................................... 24\nB. Evidence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement is Not Otherwise Admissible for Any Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 29\nC. Evidence that the Defendant was Not Charged by the USAO-SDFL is Irrelevant to Minor Victim-4’s Credibility ........................................................................................................... 31\nD. The Government Should Preclude Testimony from Case Agents About Irrelevant Matters ................................................................................................................................................... 33\nE. The Government’s Alleged Motives Are Irrelevant ........................................................................ 34\nF. The Court Should Preclude Challenges to the Credibility of Individuals Who Are Not Witnesses at Trial ............................................................................................................................... 35", "position": "middle" }, { "type": "printed", "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005556", "position": "footer" } ], "entities": { "people": [ "Minor Victim-1", "Minor Victim-3", "Minor Victim-4", "Minor Victim-6", "Defendant" ], "organizations": [ "USAO-SDFL", "DOJ" ], "locations": [], "dates": [ "10/29/21" ], "reference_numbers": [ "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE", "Document 383", "DOJ-OGR-00005556" ] }, "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The content is a table of contents for a legal argument. There are no visible redactions or damage." }