mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011111.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "690",
    "date": "11/19/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 690 Filed 11/19/21 Page 3 of 23 Government expects the witness to testify: Gov. Supp. Ltr. at 2-3 (Nov. 5, 2021). These statements are relevant because the jury may conclude that they tend to establish that the Defendant knew the alleged massages were sexualized and the Defendant's motive for facilitating the encounters. Id. at 3, 9. This testimony is relevant because the jury may conclude that it tends to establish the Defendant's intent to recruit girls for sexualized massages. Id. at 3. Although it is not the only available interpretation of this evidence, the jury could conclude that Such knowledge and intent are of course proper purposes under Rule 404(b).3 3 Defendant argues that this witness's testimony is impermissible propensity evidence as to Mr. Epstein under Rule 404(b). Def. Supp. Resp. at 5-7 (Nov. 11, 2021). The Court is unpersuaded. The testimony is not offered to show that Mr. Epstein acted in accordance with a certain character trait on a particular occasion. Rather, it is probative of whether Ms. Maxwell knew of or at least believed he had a sexual interest in , which a jury may find tends to establish the Defendant's intent and motive as to the charged crimes. See Roe v. Howard, 917 F.3d 229, 245-46 (4th Cir. 2019) (rejecting argument that husband's assault of a non-party housekeeper was improper character evidence under Rule 404(b) in a Trafficking Victims Protection Act action against the wife for facilitating husband's assaults of live-in housekeeper). 3 DOJ-OGR-00011111",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 690 Filed 11/19/21 Page 3 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Government expects the witness to testify:",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Gov. Supp. Ltr. at 2-3 (Nov. 5, 2021). These statements are relevant because the jury may conclude that they tend to establish that the Defendant knew the alleged massages were sexualized and the Defendant's motive for facilitating the encounters.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. at 3, 9. This testimony is relevant because the jury may conclude that it tends to establish the Defendant's intent to recruit girls for sexualized massages.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. at 3. Although it is not the only available interpretation of this evidence, the jury could conclude that",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Such knowledge and intent are of course proper purposes under Rule 404(b).3",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3 Defendant argues that this witness's testimony is impermissible propensity evidence as to Mr. Epstein under Rule 404(b). Def. Supp. Resp. at 5-7 (Nov. 11, 2021). The Court is unpersuaded. The testimony is not offered to show that Mr. Epstein acted in accordance with a certain character trait on a particular occasion. Rather, it is probative of whether Ms. Maxwell knew of or at least believed he had a sexual interest in , which a jury may find tends to establish the Defendant's intent and motive as to the charged crimes. See Roe v. Howard, 917 F.3d 229, 245-46 (4th Cir. 2019) (rejecting argument that husband's assault of a non-party housekeeper was improper character evidence under Rule 404(b) in a Trafficking Victims Protection Act action against the wife for facilitating husband's assaults of live-in housekeeper).",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011111",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Defendant",
      "Mr. Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "Nov. 5, 2021",
      "Nov. 11, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 690",
      "917 F.3d 229"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The text is mostly clear, but some parts are blacked out."
}