mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005860.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "77 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 77 of 84\nconsistent with the rules in this exhibit.19 The relevance of the document is self-evident: among other things, it directs employees to “see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing.” (GX 606 at 4). It is not prejudicial as to her “lifestyle” (Def. Mot. 13 at 3), because the jury will already hear testimony about her and Epstein’s various properties, private jet, and employees. And the document is not hearsay, because the statements are being offered as instructions to staff, not for the truth of the matter asserted.\nAs described above, each of these exhibits is highly relevant, not hearsay or subject to a hearsay exception, and can be authenticated at trial. The Court should deny the defense’s motion regarding relevance and Rule 403, and deny the motion regarding authentication with leave to renew it at trial.\nVII. There is No Basis to Preclude Discussion of “Victims” or Rape\nCiting no case in the federal system, the defendant moves to preclude any trial participants from referring to the Minor Victims as Victims. The defendant also moves to preclude testimony concerning a rape committed by Jeffrey Epstein against one of the Minor Victims. Both of these motions lack merit, and they should be denied.\nA. References to Victims\n19 Here and elsewhere (see, e.g. Def. Mot. 2 at 3-4), the defense argues that evidence that post-dates the time period of the conspiracy is irrelevant. That is incorrect. What matters is whether the evidence tends to make a fact of consequence more or less probable. If, for instance, there is evidence showing that Epstein and the defendant were extremely close partners in 2005, that tends to make it more probable that they had such a relationship in 2004, during the time period of the conspiracy. It is therefore highly relevant.\n76\nDOJ-OGR-00005860",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 77 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "consistent with the rules in this exhibit.19 The relevance of the document is self-evident: among other things, it directs employees to “see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing.” (GX 606 at 4). It is not prejudicial as to her “lifestyle” (Def. Mot. 13 at 3), because the jury will already hear testimony about her and Epstein’s various properties, private jet, and employees. And the document is not hearsay, because the statements are being offered as instructions to staff, not for the truth of the matter asserted.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As described above, each of these exhibits is highly relevant, not hearsay or subject to a hearsay exception, and can be authenticated at trial. The Court should deny the defense’s motion regarding relevance and Rule 403, and deny the motion regarding authentication with leave to renew it at trial.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "VII. There is No Basis to Preclude Discussion of “Victims” or Rape\nCiting no case in the federal system, the defendant moves to preclude any trial participants from referring to the Minor Victims as Victims. The defendant also moves to preclude testimony concerning a rape committed by Jeffrey Epstein against one of the Minor Victims. Both of these motions lack merit, and they should be denied.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. References to Victims",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "19 Here and elsewhere (see, e.g. Def. Mot. 2 at 3-4), the defense argues that evidence that post-dates the time period of the conspiracy is irrelevant. That is incorrect. What matters is whether the evidence tends to make a fact of consequence more or less probable. If, for instance, there is evidence showing that Epstein and the defendant were extremely close partners in 2005, that tends to make it more probable that they had such a relationship in 2004, during the time period of the conspiracy. It is therefore highly relevant.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "76",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005860",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "2004",
      "2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 397",
      "GX 606",
      "Def. Mot. 13",
      "Def. Mot. 2",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005860"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text discusses the relevance and admissibility of certain evidence and testimony. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}