mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020782.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "23",
    "document_number": "207",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page164 of 208\nA-160\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 23 of 34\n\ncivil case, but that is not the legal standard. The Government may prevail if it proves that Maxwell's answers could have led to the discovery of other evidence or could influence the factfinder in the civil case. See Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 509; Kross, 14 F.3d at 753-54. At trial, a reasonable juror could conclude that truthful answers to the questions may have permitted the plaintiff to locate other victims or witnesses who could have corroborated the plaintiff's testimony. The factual disputes relating to materiality are at least enough to preclude pretrial resolution. In criminal cases, courts must guard against \"invading the 'inviolable function of the jury' in our criminal justice system,\" and if the \"defense raises a factual dispute that is inextricably intertwined with a defendant's potential culpability, a judge cannot resolve that dispute on a Rule 12(b) motion.\" United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270, 281 (2d Cir. 2018).\n\nThe Court concludes that the perjury charges are legally tenable and appropriately presented to the jury.\n\nV. The perjury charges must be severed and tried separately\n\nAlthough the perjury charges are legally tenable, the Court concludes that the interests of justice require severing those counts and trying them separately. Trying the perjury counts together with the Mann Act counts would require admitting evidence of other acts likely to be unduly prejudicial. It would also risk disqualifying Maxwell's chosen counsel based on their involvement in the earlier civil case.\n\nRule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a court to order separate trials if joining all offenses in a single trial would prejudice the defendant. A defendant seeking severance must show significant unfairness to outweigh the burden on the court of conducting multiple trials. United States v. Walker, 142 F.3d 103, 110 (2d Cir. 1998). The harm to the defendant must be more than \"solely the adverse effect of being tried for two crimes rather than",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page164 of 208",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-160",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 23 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "civil case, but that is not the legal standard. The Government may prevail if it proves that Maxwell's answers could have led to the discovery of other evidence or could influence the factfinder in the civil case. See Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 509; Kross, 14 F.3d at 753-54. At trial, a reasonable juror could conclude that truthful answers to the questions may have permitted the plaintiff to locate other victims or witnesses who could have corroborated the plaintiff's testimony. The factual disputes relating to materiality are at least enough to preclude pretrial resolution. In criminal cases, courts must guard against \"invading the 'inviolable function of the jury' in our criminal justice system,\" and if the \"defense raises a factual dispute that is inextricably intertwined with a defendant's potential culpability, a judge cannot resolve that dispute on a Rule 12(b) motion.\" United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 270, 281 (2d Cir. 2018).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court concludes that the perjury charges are legally tenable and appropriately presented to the jury.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "V. The perjury charges must be severed and tried separately",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although the perjury charges are legally tenable, the Court concludes that the interests of justice require severing those counts and trying them separately. Trying the perjury counts together with the Mann Act counts would require admitting evidence of other acts likely to be unduly prejudicial. It would also risk disqualifying Maxwell's chosen counsel based on their involvement in the earlier civil case.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a court to order separate trials if joining all offenses in a single trial would prejudice the defendant. A defendant seeking severance must show significant unfairness to outweigh the burden on the court of conducting multiple trials. United States v. Walker, 142 F.3d 103, 110 (2d Cir. 1998). The harm to the defendant must be more than \"solely the adverse effect of being tried for two crimes rather than",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "23",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020782",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 57",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 207",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020782"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Maxwell. The text discusses the legal standards for perjury charges and the need to sever those charges from other counts. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}