mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021064.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "17",
    "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, Page17 of 113\n\nSTATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW\n\n1. Whether the District Court misapplied U.S. v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam) to impose limits on a non-prosecution agreement contrary to the agreement's plain meaning and endorsed its untenable interpretation without discovery or a hearing to determine the intent of the parties.\n\n2. Whether the District Court erred in extending the statute of limitations for violations of §2423(a) and §1591 under §3283 and whether the 2003 amendment to §3283 or §3299 applies retroactively to offenses committed before enactment of these statutes.\n\n3. Whether the court should have granted a new trial after it learned that a juror made materially false statements in jury selection that concealed that he had experienced the \"exact same thing\" as the victims, namely, childhood sexual abuse, because truthful answers given at the time of voir dire would have provided a valid basis for a cause challenge.\n\n4. Whether the District Court erred in refusing to correct the jury's misunderstanding (evident from a Jury Note) under Count 4 that sexual activity in New Mexico violated New York Penal Law §130.55), which caused the jury to convict Defendant solely based on evidence of sexual activity outside of New York, thereby constituting a constructive amendment and/or a variance from the Indictment.\n\n2\nDOJ-OGR-00021064",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page17 of 113",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. Whether the District Court misapplied U.S. v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam) to impose limits on a non-prosecution agreement contrary to the agreement's plain meaning and endorsed its untenable interpretation without discovery or a hearing to determine the intent of the parties.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. Whether the District Court erred in extending the statute of limitations for violations of §2423(a) and §1591 under §3283 and whether the 2003 amendment to §3283 or §3299 applies retroactively to offenses committed before enactment of these statutes.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3. Whether the court should have granted a new trial after it learned that a juror made materially false statements in jury selection that concealed that he had experienced the \"exact same thing\" as the victims, namely, childhood sexual abuse, because truthful answers given at the time of voir dire would have provided a valid basis for a cause challenge.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4. Whether the District Court erred in refusing to correct the jury's misunderstanding (evident from a Jury Note) under Count 4 that sexual activity in New Mexico violated New York Penal Law §130.55), which caused the jury to convict Defendant solely based on evidence of sexual activity outside of New York, thereby constituting a constructive amendment and/or a variance from the Indictment.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021064",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "District Court",
      "New York Penal Law"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New Mexico",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "1985",
      "2003"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "59",
      "3475902",
      "113",
      "771 F.2d 670",
      "§2423(a)",
      "§1591",
      "§3283",
      "§3299",
      "§130.55",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021064"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}