mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003123.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "189",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 189 of 239\n\npublic, and so punishable in itself.\"). Indeed, \"[i]t is well settled that the essential elements of the crime of conspiracy are: (1) that the defendant agreed with at least one other person to commit an offense; (2) the defendant knowingly participated in the conspiracy with the specific intent to commit the offenses that were the objects of the conspiracy; and (3) that during the existence of the conspiracy, at least one of the overt acts set forth in the indictment was committed by one or more of the members of the conspiracy in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy.\" United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 145-46 (2d Cir. 1998).\n\nBecause a conspiracy does not require the completion of a substantive crime, it does not matter whether Minor Victim-3 was ever in fact transported as a minor, or whether the elements of the substantive crimes of transportation an enticement are satisfied as to her. See Salinas, 522 U.S. at 65. What matters is whether the Indictment properly alleges that the defendant agreed to participate in schemes to transport and entice minors to travel with the intent that an illegal sex act would be committed, and whether the allegations at issue are relevant and admissible evidence of that conspiracy. Here, that is plainly the case. As alleged, the defendant's participation in recruiting and grooming Minor Victim-3 to engage in sex acts as a minor with Epstein during the period charged in the Indictment, is itself evidence of the defendant's agreements with Epstein to identify minor girls to entice and transport for purposes of illegal sex acts.57 Moreover, the\n\n57 The defendant takes issue with the Indictment's reference to these sex acts as \"abuse\" because, she asserts, Minor Victim-3 was above the age of consent in the United Kingdom at the time they occurred. The description in the Indictment is factually accurate, however, because Minor Victim-3 will testify to her subjective experience of these acts with a much older man as traumatic, exploitative, and abusive at trial. While the Government will be careful to avoid suggesting to the jury that any consensual act committed after Minor Victim-3 was at or above the age of consent was itself criminal (as opposed to evidence of the charged conspiracies), to the extent defense counsel wishes to request a particular limiting instruction or to seek authorization for a particular line of cross-examination regarding the legality of any sex acts that took place in London, the appropriate forum to do so is in a motion in limine.\n\n162\nDOJ-OGR-00003123",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 189 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "public, and so punishable in itself.\"). Indeed, \"[i]t is well settled that the essential elements of the crime of conspiracy are: (1) that the defendant agreed with at least one other person to commit an offense; (2) the defendant knowingly participated in the conspiracy with the specific intent to commit the offenses that were the objects of the conspiracy; and (3) that during the existence of the conspiracy, at least one of the overt acts set forth in the indictment was committed by one or more of the members of the conspiracy in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy.\" United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 145-46 (2d Cir. 1998).\n\nBecause a conspiracy does not require the completion of a substantive crime, it does not matter whether Minor Victim-3 was ever in fact transported as a minor, or whether the elements of the substantive crimes of transportation an enticement are satisfied as to her. See Salinas, 522 U.S. at 65. What matters is whether the Indictment properly alleges that the defendant agreed to participate in schemes to transport and entice minors to travel with the intent that an illegal sex act would be committed, and whether the allegations at issue are relevant and admissible evidence of that conspiracy. Here, that is plainly the case. As alleged, the defendant's participation in recruiting and grooming Minor Victim-3 to engage in sex acts as a minor with Epstein during the period charged in the Indictment, is itself evidence of the defendant's agreements with Epstein to identify minor girls to entice and transport for purposes of illegal sex acts.57 Moreover, the",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "57 The defendant takes issue with the Indictment's reference to these sex acts as \"abuse\" because, she asserts, Minor Victim-3 was above the age of consent in the United Kingdom at the time they occurred. The description in the Indictment is factually accurate, however, because Minor Victim-3 will testify to her subjective experience of these acts with a much older man as traumatic, exploitative, and abusive at trial. While the Government will be careful to avoid suggesting to the jury that any consensual act committed after Minor Victim-3 was at or above the age of consent was itself criminal (as opposed to evidence of the charged conspiracies), to the extent defense counsel wishes to request a particular limiting instruction or to seek authorization for a particular line of cross-examination regarding the legality of any sex acts that took place in London, the appropriate forum to do so is in a motion in limine.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "162",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003123",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Minor Victim-3",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United Kingdom",
      "London"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003123"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving conspiracy charges. The text discusses the elements of conspiracy and the relevance of certain allegations to the case. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}