mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021008.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "25",
    "document_number": "657",
    "date": "04/29/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page182 of 221\nA-382\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 25 of 45\n1. The Court's instructions, the evidence at trial, and the Government's summation captured the core of criminality.\nFirst, the Court's instructions to the jury during trial and after the close of evidence captured the core of criminality. As explained above, the Indictment charged the Defendant with four counts in violation of the Mann Act, each predicated on a violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55. That provision of New York law criminalizes sexual contact with an individual known to be under the age of seventeen. Jury Charge at 24. The jury charge made clear that this provision of New York law served as the predicate offense for Counts Two and Four. See id. at 23-24 (Count Two), 28 (Count Four, instructing the jury to decide whether the Defendant had knowingly transported Jane with the intent to engage in sexual activity with Jane in violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55, as alleged in the Indictment). The Court also accepted the Defendant's requested edits that further clarified that the predicate state offense was New York law. See, e.g., Request to Charge at 19, 23, 26, 30, 31, Dkt. No. 410-1; Jury Charge at 20, 24, 26, 28 (specifying, e.g., that the predicate state offense was \"New York law,\" rather than an unspecified \"criminal offense\").\nThe jury charge also clearly instructed on the role of New York law in the jury's assessment of the Mann Act conspiracy counts, Counts One and Three. The charge explained that the object of the conspiracies was a violation of the same New York law at issue in Count Two. See Jury Charge at 44-45. In particular, the objects of Counts One and Three were the enticement of minors to travel and the transport of minors, respectively, with the intent to engage in sexual activity illegal under New York law. See id. As for the overt acts, the Court, at the parties' request, did not provide the jury with a copy of the Indictment. Trial Tr. at 2781-82. Rather, the charge specified the relevant overt acts. Jury Charge at 49-50. For Counts One and Three, this included the instruction: \"the Indictment alleges as follows: . . . (2) In or about 1996,\n25\nDOJ-OGR-00021008",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page182 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-382",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 25 of 45",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. The Court's instructions, the evidence at trial, and the Government's summation captured the core of criminality.\nFirst, the Court's instructions to the jury during trial and after the close of evidence captured the core of criminality. As explained above, the Indictment charged the Defendant with four counts in violation of the Mann Act, each predicated on a violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55. That provision of New York law criminalizes sexual contact with an individual known to be under the age of seventeen. Jury Charge at 24. The jury charge made clear that this provision of New York law served as the predicate offense for Counts Two and Four. See id. at 23-24 (Count Two), 28 (Count Four, instructing the jury to decide whether the Defendant had knowingly transported Jane with the intent to engage in sexual activity with Jane in violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55, as alleged in the Indictment). The Court also accepted the Defendant's requested edits that further clarified that the predicate state offense was New York law. See, e.g., Request to Charge at 19, 23, 26, 30, 31, Dkt. No. 410-1; Jury Charge at 20, 24, 26, 28 (specifying, e.g., that the predicate state offense was \"New York law,\" rather than an unspecified \"criminal offense\").\nThe jury charge also clearly instructed on the role of New York law in the jury's assessment of the Mann Act conspiracy counts, Counts One and Three. The charge explained that the object of the conspiracies was a violation of the same New York law at issue in Count Two. See Jury Charge at 44-45. In particular, the objects of Counts One and Three were the enticement of minors to travel and the transport of minors, respectively, with the intent to engage in sexual activity illegal under New York law. See id. As for the overt acts, the Court, at the parties' request, did not provide the jury with a copy of the Indictment. Trial Tr. at 2781-82. Rather, the charge specified the relevant overt acts. Jury Charge at 49-50. For Counts One and Three, this included the instruction: \"the Indictment alleges as follows: . . . (2) In or about 1996,",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "25",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021008",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Defendant"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "04/29/22",
      "1996"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "3475901",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 657",
      "Dkt. No. 410-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021008"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}