mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006419.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "439",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 2 of 69\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nPRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..........................................................................................................................1\nA. The True Purpose of a Motion in Limine................................................................................................1\nB. Advisory Rulings are Not Appropriate Here ............................................................................................2\nC. The Court Should Reject the Government’s Attempts to Preview any Defense Case or Cross Examination ....................................................................................................................................................4\nI. THE GOVERNMENT’S PSEUDONYM TACTIC IS UNNECESSARY, UNWORKABLE, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THIS CASE ............................................................................................................................4\nA. ............................................................................................................................5\n1. ............................................................................................................................5\n2. ............................................................................................................................10\n3. ............................................................................................................................12\nB. The Government Has Failed to Carry its Burden to Establish the Extraordinary Need to Use Fake Names............................................................................................................................15\nC. ....................................................................................................... Defeats the Proffered Purpose for Using Fake Names ..... 17\n1. ............................................................................................................................17\n2. ............................................................................................................................18\nD. ............................................................................................................................19\nE. No Legitimate Safety Concerns are Present ............................................................................................19\nF. ....................................................................................................... Has No Nexus to Ms. Maxwell and Any Reference to Her Should Be Excluded -- Eliminating the Need for a Pseudonym or Other Artifice ....................................................................................................................................................20\nG. ....................................................................................................... , Hiding Their Identities and Those of Related Witnesses Serves No Legitimate Purpose ............................................................................................................................20\nH. The Use of Fake Names is Unfairly Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell ............................................................20\nI. SUPPRESSION OF THE EXHIBITS IS CONTRARY TO WELL-ESTABLISHED SECOND CIRCUIT LAW............................................................................................................................23\nII. PRE-TRIAL RULING ON “PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS” INAPPROPRIATE23\nA. The 2014 Amendments Did Not Change the Grounds for Which Prior Consistent Statements May Be Admitted ....................................................................................................................................................24\nB. Substantial Limits Remain on Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements .............................................25\ni\nDOJ-OGR-00006419",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 2 of 69",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "TABLE OF CONTENTS",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..........................................................................................................................1\nA. The True Purpose of a Motion in Limine................................................................................................1\nB. Advisory Rulings are Not Appropriate Here ............................................................................................2\nC. The Court Should Reject the Government’s Attempts to Preview any Defense Case or Cross Examination ....................................................................................................................................................4\nI. THE GOVERNMENT’S PSEUDONYM TACTIC IS UNNECESSARY, UNWORKABLE, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THIS CASE ............................................................................................................................4\nA. ............................................................................................................................5\n1. ............................................................................................................................5\n2. ............................................................................................................................10\n3. ............................................................................................................................12\nB. The Government Has Failed to Carry its Burden to Establish the Extraordinary Need to Use Fake Names............................................................................................................................15\nC. ....................................................................................................... Defeats the Proffered Purpose for Using Fake Names ..... 17\n1. ............................................................................................................................17\n2. ............................................................................................................................18\nD. ............................................................................................................................19\nE. No Legitimate Safety Concerns are Present ............................................................................................19\nF. ....................................................................................................... Has No Nexus to Ms. Maxwell and Any Reference to Her Should Be Excluded -- Eliminating the Need for a Pseudonym or Other Artifice ....................................................................................................................................................20\nG. ....................................................................................................... , Hiding Their Identities and Those of Related Witnesses Serves No Legitimate Purpose ............................................................................................................................20\nH. The Use of Fake Names is Unfairly Prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell ............................................................20\nI. SUPPRESSION OF THE EXHIBITS IS CONTRARY TO WELL-ESTABLISHED SECOND CIRCUIT LAW............................................................................................................................23\nII. PRE-TRIAL RULING ON “PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS” INAPPROPRIATE23\nA. The 2014 Amendments Did Not Change the Grounds for Which Prior Consistent Statements May Be Admitted ....................................................................................................................................................24\nB. Substantial Limits Remain on Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements .............................................25",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "i\nDOJ-OGR-00006419",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21",
      "2014"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 439",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006419"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a table of contents. Some section titles and content are redacted."
}