mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005787.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "397",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 4 of 84\n\nPRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\nThe Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant's thirteen motions in limine, dated October 18, 2021. For the reasons that follow, the defendant's motions should be denied.\n\nFirst, the Government has given notice of a qualified expert who will provide reliable and relevant opinions, as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). (See Def. Mot. 3). Second, evidence relating to Minor Victim-3 is admissible both as direct evidence of the charged crimes, and admissible in the alternative under Rule 404(b). (See Def. Mot. 4). Third, the Government has provided adequate notice pursuant to Rule 404(b), and in any event, all evidence for which it has provided such notice is also admissible as direct evidence of the charged crimes. (See Def. Mot. 2). Fourth, there is no basis to preclude the introduction of co-conspirator statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). (See Def. Mot. 1). Fifth, Minor Victim-4's confirmatory identification of the defendant was not unduly suggestive, and it should not be suppressed. (See Def. Mot. 9). Sixth, the Government's various exhibits are relevant, and the Government will authenticate them at trial. (See Def. Mots. 7, 8, 13). Seventh, it is entirely proper for the word \"victim\" and for discussion of rape to be used in a trial about the sexual exploitation of minor victims. (See Def. Mots. 11, 12). Eighth, and finally, the Government does not intend to offer evidence of the defendant's flight, her false exculpatory statements, or law enforcement expert testimony in its case in chief, unless the defendant opens the door or otherwise puts this evidence in issue. (See Def. Mots. 5, 6, 10).\n\n3\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005787",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 4 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in opposition to the defendant's thirteen motions in limine, dated October 18, 2021. For the reasons that follow, the defendant's motions should be denied.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, the Government has given notice of a qualified expert who will provide reliable and relevant opinions, as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). (See Def. Mot. 3). Second, evidence relating to Minor Victim-3 is admissible both as direct evidence of the charged crimes, and admissible in the alternative under Rule 404(b). (See Def. Mot. 4). Third, the Government has provided adequate notice pursuant to Rule 404(b), and in any event, all evidence for which it has provided such notice is also admissible as direct evidence of the charged crimes. (See Def. Mot. 2). Fourth, there is no basis to preclude the introduction of co-conspirator statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). (See Def. Mot. 1). Fifth, Minor Victim-4's confirmatory identification of the defendant was not unduly suggestive, and it should not be suppressed. (See Def. Mot. 9). Sixth, the Government's various exhibits are relevant, and the Government will authenticate them at trial. (See Def. Mots. 7, 8, 13). Seventh, it is entirely proper for the word \"victim\" and for discussion of rape to be used in a trial about the sexual exploitation of minor victims. (See Def. Mots. 11, 12). Eighth, and finally, the Government does not intend to offer evidence of the defendant's flight, her false exculpatory statements, or law enforcement expert testimony in its case in chief, unless the defendant opens the door or otherwise puts this evidence in issue. (See Def. Mots. 5, 6, 10).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005787",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "October 18, 2021",
      "10/29/21",
      "1993"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "397",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005787",
      "509 U.S. 579"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing, specifically a memorandum in opposition to the defendant's motions in limine. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}