mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021728.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "81",
    "document_number": "79",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page81 of 93\n\n68\n\nFour alleged that Maxwell knowingly transported Jane \"with the intent that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York law.\" (Tr.3037; see Tr.3035 (second element of Count Four requires proof of an intent to violate \"New York law as alleged in the indictment\")). Judge Nathan also instructed the jury on only one predicate state offense: a violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 130.55. (Tr.3034, 3037). The instructions on Count Three incorporated this discussion of the elements of Count Four, and the only statute identified was N.Y. Penal Law § 130.55. (Tr.3049-50, 3056-57).\n\nDuring deliberations, the jury sent the following note:\n\nUnder Count Four, if the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane's return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity, can she be found guilty under the second element?\n\n(Tr.3126). The note led to a lengthy discussion, at the conclusion of which Judge Nathan determined she should refer the jury back to the jury charge on the second element of Count Four because the jury note was otherwise \"too difficult to parse factually and legally.\" (Tr.3126-40).\n\nThat night, Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of Judge Nathan's response and raising the possibility of a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance because, in her view, the note showed that\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021728",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page81 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "68",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Four alleged that Maxwell knowingly transported Jane \"with the intent that Jane engage in sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York law.\" (Tr.3037; see Tr.3035 (second element of Count Four requires proof of an intent to violate \"New York law as alleged in the indictment\")). Judge Nathan also instructed the jury on only one predicate state offense: a violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 130.55. (Tr.3034, 3037). The instructions on Count Three incorporated this discussion of the elements of Count Four, and the only statute identified was N.Y. Penal Law § 130.55. (Tr.3049-50, 3056-57).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "During deliberations, the jury sent the following note:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Under Count Four, if the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane's return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity, can she be found guilty under the second element?",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(Tr.3126). The note led to a lengthy discussion, at the conclusion of which Judge Nathan determined she should refer the jury back to the jury charge on the second element of Count Four because the jury note was otherwise \"too difficult to parse factually and legally.\" (Tr.3126-40).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "That night, Maxwell filed a letter seeking reconsideration of Judge Nathan's response and raising the possibility of a constructive amendment or prejudicial variance because, in her view, the note showed that",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021728",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Jane",
      "Judge Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "New Mexico"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 79",
      "3536060",
      "Tr.3037",
      "Tr.3035",
      "Tr.3034",
      "Tr.3049-50",
      "Tr.3056-57",
      "Tr.3126",
      "Tr.3126-40",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021728"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to a case involving Maxwell and Jane. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is likely a page from a larger document, as indicated by the 'Page81 of 93' notation at the top."
}