mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005823.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "40 of 84",
    "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 40 of 84 Employee-1 to testify that in or about October 2005, Epstein and her supervisor directed her to gather the computers and contact books in the house and hand them over to a specified individual. Employee-1's testimony is admissible for multiple permissible purposes. Her testimony shows the relationship between Epstein and the defendant , shortly after the end of the conspiracy period, including the defendant's role in Epstein's affairs. Similarly, it provides background information about the operation of Epstein's homes and lifestyle. Employee-1's testimony will also show the defendant and Epstein's plan and preparation, because it will describe the process and frequency of obtaining masseuses, including the fact that the masseuses were often underage girls, and that some of the massages developed into sexual abuse. And Employee-1's testimony tends to show the defendant's knowledge, because it describes the visibility of Epstein's abuse to individuals at his properties. Finally, Employee-1's testimony will authenticate exhibits that are direct evidence of the charged crimes. Accordingly, Employee-1's testimony is direct evidence of the crimes charged. Moreover, this evidence is admissible in the alternative under Rule 404(b), for substantially the same reasons. 2. The Government Has Met and Exceeded Its Notice Obligations Even if Rule 404(b) applies here, the Government's October 11, 2021 letter—and the corresponding Jencks Act disclosures—have satisfied any notice obligations that apply here. The defense claims that the Government's October 11, 2021 notice was inadequate in light of the 2020 amendments to Rule 404(b). The Government provided the defense with a letter, and corresponding disclosures, seven weeks before trial. In fact, the defense has had the seven exhibits for much longer, since they were part of the Government's Rule 16 discovery productions. The defense now also has this briefing, five weeks before trial. Thus, any alleged gap in the 39 DOJ-OGR-00005823",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 40 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Employee-1 to testify that in or about October 2005, Epstein and her supervisor directed her to gather the computers and contact books in the house and hand them over to a specified individual. Employee-1's testimony is admissible for multiple permissible purposes. Her testimony shows the relationship between Epstein and the defendant , shortly after the end of the conspiracy period, including the defendant's role in Epstein's affairs. Similarly, it provides background information about the operation of Epstein's homes and lifestyle. Employee-1's testimony will also show the defendant and Epstein's plan and preparation, because it will describe the process and frequency of obtaining masseuses, including the fact that the masseuses were often underage girls, and that some of the massages developed into sexual abuse. And Employee-1's testimony tends to show the defendant's knowledge, because it describes the visibility of Epstein's abuse to individuals at his properties. Finally, Employee-1's testimony will authenticate exhibits that are direct evidence of the charged crimes. Accordingly, Employee-1's testimony is direct evidence of the crimes charged. Moreover, this evidence is admissible in the alternative under Rule 404(b), for substantially the same reasons.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. The Government Has Met and Exceeded Its Notice Obligations Even if Rule 404(b) applies here, the Government's October 11, 2021 letter—and the corresponding Jencks Act disclosures—have satisfied any notice obligations that apply here. The defense claims that the Government's October 11, 2021 notice was inadequate in light of the 2020 amendments to Rule 404(b). The Government provided the defense with a letter, and corresponding disclosures, seven weeks before trial. In fact, the defense has had the seven exhibits for much longer, since they were part of the Government's Rule 16 discovery productions. The defense now also has this briefing, five weeks before trial. Thus, any alleged gap in the",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "39",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005823",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Employee-1"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "October 2005",
      "October 11, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 397",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005823"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Epstein. The text discusses the admissibility of Employee-1's testimony and the government's notice obligations under Rule 404(b). The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}