mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021729.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "82",
    "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, Page82 of 93\n\n69\n\nthe jury might convict based on Jane's testimony that she was abused in New Mexico. (A.224-25). Maxwell asked Judge Nathan to instruct the jury as to the intent elements of Counts Two and Four, and add that \"[a]n intent that Jane engage in sexual activity in any state other than New York cannot form the basis of these two elements of Counts Two and Four.\" (A.229).\n\nJudge Nathan rejected Maxwell's request both because the jury did not inquire about Count Two and because the final sentence as \"just wrong\" in suggesting that an intent that Jane engage in sexual activity outside of New York \"may have no relevance.\" (Tr.3149). As Judge Nathan explained, \"This is the same discussion we've had a couple of times . . . . Sexual activity with respect to Jane in New Mexico under the age of 17 can be relevant to an intent to transport to New York to engage in sexual activity under the age of 17 . . . .\" (Tr.3149-50). Judge Nathan repeated that she did \"not know how to parse the jury's question exactly,\" but that her instruction directing the jury to the original charge included a reminder that \"it's a violation of New York penal law that's charged and is the illegal sexual activity that they're considering\" (Tr.3150). Judge Nathan also pointed out that Maxwell did not \"seek to exclude\" Jane's testimony about New Mexico, or \"seek a limiting instruction with respect to that testimony.\" (Tr.3153). Judge Nathan added \"I have no idea if that's what the jury is asking or many other plausible readings,\" noted that the defense had proposed an \"incorrect\" instruction, and concluded no more was required than sending the jury \"back to the charge.\" (Tr.3154).\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021729",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page82 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "69",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the jury might convict based on Jane's testimony that she was abused in New Mexico. (A.224-25). Maxwell asked Judge Nathan to instruct the jury as to the intent elements of Counts Two and Four, and add that \"[a]n intent that Jane engage in sexual activity in any state other than New York cannot form the basis of these two elements of Counts Two and Four.\" (A.229).\n\nJudge Nathan rejected Maxwell's request both because the jury did not inquire about Count Two and because the final sentence as \"just wrong\" in suggesting that an intent that Jane engage in sexual activity outside of New York \"may have no relevance.\" (Tr.3149). As Judge Nathan explained, \"This is the same discussion we've had a couple of times . . . . Sexual activity with respect to Jane in New Mexico under the age of 17 can be relevant to an intent to transport to New York to engage in sexual activity under the age of 17 . . . .\" (Tr.3149-50). Judge Nathan repeated that she did \"not know how to parse the jury's question exactly,\" but that her instruction directing the jury to the original charge included a reminder that \"it's a violation of New York penal law that's charged and is the illegal sexual activity that they're considering\" (Tr.3150). Judge Nathan also pointed out that Maxwell did not \"seek to exclude\" Jane's testimony about New Mexico, or \"seek a limiting instruction with respect to that testimony.\" (Tr.3153). Judge Nathan added \"I have no idea if that's what the jury is asking or many other plausible readings,\" noted that the defense had proposed an \"incorrect\" instruction, and concluded no more was required than sending the jury \"back to the charge.\" (Tr.3154).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021729",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Maxwell",
      "Judge Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "New Mexico",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "79",
      "3536060",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021729"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}