mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021027.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "44",
    "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, Page201 of 221\nA-401\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 44 of 45\nwould have credited this vague testimony about an unnamed individual over the evidence presented at trial, including the testimony of Juan Alessi and an email chain between the Defendant and Markham that indicates that the Defendant worked closely with Markham to create the manual and provided specific content, such as the checklists, to be included. See GX-424.\nFinally, the Defendant refers to her prior briefing in which she alleged substantial prejudice because of the absence of other deceased potential witnesses, including Epstein, Epstein's mother, Jane's talent agent Michael Casey, and Palm Beach Police Department Detective Joseph Recarey. See Dkt. No. 138 at 8–11. The Court has previously considered and rejected the Defendant's claim of prejudice based on these absent witnesses. Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d at 317. The Defendant points to no development at trial that she believes should alter the Court's conclusion, nor is the Court aware of any such reason for reconsideration.\nThe Defendant's reply brief devotes just a single sentence to her claim of pre-indictment delay and does not address any of the defects identified by the Government. She has not satisfied either element required for a claim of pre-indictment delay, as she has not demonstrated that the Government improperly delayed prosecution nor that she suffered actual and substantial prejudice from such delay. The Court therefore denies her motion to vacate her convictions on this basis.\nV. Conclusion\nFor the foregoing reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's Rule 29 motion because the jury's guilty verdicts were supported by the witness testimony and documentary evidence presented at trial. The Court denies the Defendant's motion based on constructive amendment or variance because the jury instructions, the Government's evidence at trial, and summation all\n44\nDOJ-OGR-00021027",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page201 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-401",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 44 of 45",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "would have credited this vague testimony about an unnamed individual over the evidence presented at trial, including the testimony of Juan Alessi and an email chain between the Defendant and Markham that indicates that the Defendant worked closely with Markham to create the manual and provided specific content, such as the checklists, to be included. See GX-424.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, the Defendant refers to her prior briefing in which she alleged substantial prejudice because of the absence of other deceased potential witnesses, including Epstein, Epstein's mother, Jane's talent agent Michael Casey, and Palm Beach Police Department Detective Joseph Recarey. See Dkt. No. 138 at 8–11. The Court has previously considered and rejected the Defendant's claim of prejudice based on these absent witnesses. Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d at 317. The Defendant points to no development at trial that she believes should alter the Court's conclusion, nor is the Court aware of any such reason for reconsideration.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Defendant's reply brief devotes just a single sentence to her claim of pre-indictment delay and does not address any of the defects identified by the Government. She has not satisfied either element required for a claim of pre-indictment delay, as she has not demonstrated that the Government improperly delayed prosecution nor that she suffered actual and substantial prejudice from such delay. The Court therefore denies her motion to vacate her convictions on this basis.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "V. Conclusion",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's Rule 29 motion because the jury's guilty verdicts were supported by the witness testimony and documentary evidence presented at trial. The Court denies the Defendant's motion based on constructive amendment or variance because the jury instructions, the Government's evidence at trial, and summation all",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "44",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021027",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Juan Alessi",
      "Markham",
      "Epstein",
      "Epstein's mother",
      "Jane",
      "Michael Casey",
      "Joseph Recarey"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Palm Beach Police Department"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Palm Beach"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "04/29/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 657",
      "GX-424",
      "Dkt. No. 138",
      "Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d at 317",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021027"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}