mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021051.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "59",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page4 of 113\n2. The McDonough Test: The Second Prong ....................................................... 66\nE. The District Court Abused its Discretion in the Manner in Which it Conducted the Post-Trial Hearing ........ 68\n1. The Court Erred in Precluding Defense Counsel From Questioning Juror 50 ....................................... 69\n2. FRE 606 Did Not Prevent Inquiry into Juror 50's Use of Prior Abuse in Persuading Jury to Convict Maxwell ......................................................................................................................... 70\nF. The District Court Erred in Finding that (1) Juror 50 was Not Biased and (2) Juror 50 Would Not Have Been Stricken Even if He Had Answered the Questions Accurately ....................................................... 71\nPOINT IV\nTHE COURT CONSTRUCTIVELY AMENDED COUNTS THREE AND FOUR OF THE INDICTMENT .................... 73\nA. Background Facts ............................................................................................ 74\n1. The Jury Note ................................................................................................ 74\nB. Applicable Law ............................................................................................... 75\n1. The \"Core of Criminality\" of Counts Three and Four Was a Scheme to Cause Underaged Girls to Travel to New York with an Intent to Violate New York Law ....................................... 76\n2. There is a Substantial Likelihood that Maxwell Was Convicted on Counts Three and Four Based on Conduct Not Charged in the Indictment ............................................................... 77\nC. The Variance Between the Proof at Trial and the Allegations in the Indictment Substantially Prejudiced Maxwell ......................................................................................................................... 81\nPOINT V\nTHE SENTENCE SHOULD BE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING AS THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN APPLYING AN INCORRECT GUIDELINE RANGE AND OFFENSE LEVEL ....................................... 82\niii\nDOJ-OGR-00021051",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page4 of 113",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. The McDonough Test: The Second Prong ....................................................... 66\nE. The District Court Abused its Discretion in the Manner in Which it Conducted the Post-Trial Hearing ........ 68\n1. The Court Erred in Precluding Defense Counsel From Questioning Juror 50 ....................................... 69\n2. FRE 606 Did Not Prevent Inquiry into Juror 50's Use of Prior Abuse in Persuading Jury to Convict Maxwell ......................................................................................................................... 70\nF. The District Court Erred in Finding that (1) Juror 50 was Not Biased and (2) Juror 50 Would Not Have Been Stricken Even if He Had Answered the Questions Accurately ....................................................... 71",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "POINT IV\nTHE COURT CONSTRUCTIVELY AMENDED COUNTS THREE AND FOUR OF THE INDICTMENT .................... 73\nA. Background Facts ............................................................................................ 74\n1. The Jury Note ................................................................................................ 74\nB. Applicable Law ............................................................................................... 75\n1. The \"Core of Criminality\" of Counts Three and Four Was a Scheme to Cause Underaged Girls to Travel to New York with an Intent to Violate New York Law ....................................... 76\n2. There is a Substantial Likelihood that Maxwell Was Convicted on Counts Three and Four Based on Conduct Not Charged in the Indictment ............................................................... 77\nC. The Variance Between the Proof at Trial and the Allegations in the Indictment Substantially Prejudiced Maxwell ......................................................................................................................... 81",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "POINT V\nTHE SENTENCE SHOULD BE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING AS THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN APPLYING AN INCORRECT GUIDELINE RANGE AND OFFENSE LEVEL ....................................... 82",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "iii",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021051",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Juror 50"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "District Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "59",
      "3475902",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021051"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}