mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004224.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "286",
    "date": "05/20/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 286 Filed 05/20/21 Page 11 of 14\n\nin this case is not to provide evidence probative of any alleged conspiracy to cause underage girls to travel, but rather to prejudice the jury by creating a cumulative impression of Ms. Maxwell as a serial \"abuser.\"\n\nFinally, the government's argument that its allegations regarding Accuser-3 are \"no more inflammatory or prejudicial than those describing the experiences of [Accuser-1] and [Accuser-2]\" has no legal basis. Because this Motion does not challenge the relevance of the government's allegations regarding Accuser-1 and Accuser-2, the inflammatory and prejudicial nature of those allegations alone would not provide a basis to strike them. See United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1013 (2d Cir. 1990) (noting that if evidence of allegation is relevant, allegation may not be stricken regardless of how prejudicial it is). However, the government's suggestion that Ms. Maxwell is not prejudiced by the inclusion of false, irrelevant allegations that Ms. Maxwell was complicit in a crime against Accuser-3 is contrary to case law striking allegations that broaden the charges against a defendant. See, e.g., United States v. Greebel, No. 15-cr-637 (KAM), 2017 WL 3610570, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2017) (\"An unsupported . . . allegation that Mr. Greebel was involved in orchestrating all four schemes [instead of the two with which he was charged] broadens the actual charges against him, and creates a significant risk of jury confusion and prejudice.\"); United States v. DeFabritus, 605 F. Supp. 1538, 1547 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (striking \"among other things\" language as prejudicial where it \"would lead the jury to draw improper inferences regarding other crimes not charged in the indictment\").\n\nThe government's allegation that Ms. Maxwell was complicit in the \"sexual abuse\" of Accuser-3 is both untrue and highly prejudicial. The government is simply trying to bolster a weak case by including irrelevant, prejudicial allegations from a third accuser that have no bearing on the charged crimes. The allegations regarding Accuser-3 should be stricken.\n\n8\nDOJ-OGR-00004224",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 286 Filed 05/20/21 Page 11 of 14",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "in this case is not to provide evidence probative of any alleged conspiracy to cause underage girls to travel, but rather to prejudice the jury by creating a cumulative impression of Ms. Maxwell as a serial \"abuser.\"\n\nFinally, the government's argument that its allegations regarding Accuser-3 are \"no more inflammatory or prejudicial than those describing the experiences of [Accuser-1] and [Accuser-2]\" has no legal basis. Because this Motion does not challenge the relevance of the government's allegations regarding Accuser-1 and Accuser-2, the inflammatory and prejudicial nature of those allegations alone would not provide a basis to strike them. See United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1013 (2d Cir. 1990) (noting that if evidence of allegation is relevant, allegation may not be stricken regardless of how prejudicial it is). However, the government's suggestion that Ms. Maxwell is not prejudiced by the inclusion of false, irrelevant allegations that Ms. Maxwell was complicit in a crime against Accuser-3 is contrary to case law striking allegations that broaden the charges against a defendant. See, e.g., United States v. Greebel, No. 15-cr-637 (KAM), 2017 WL 3610570, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2017) (\"An unsupported . . . allegation that Mr. Greebel was involved in orchestrating all four schemes [instead of the two with which he was charged] broadens the actual charges against him, and creates a significant risk of jury confusion and prejudice.\"); United States v. DeFabritus, 605 F. Supp. 1538, 1547 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (striking \"among other things\" language as prejudicial where it \"would lead the jury to draw improper inferences regarding other crimes not charged in the indictment\").",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government's allegation that Ms. Maxwell was complicit in the \"sexual abuse\" of Accuser-3 is both untrue and highly prejudicial. The government is simply trying to bolster a weak case by including irrelevant, prejudicial allegations from a third accuser that have no bearing on the charged crimes. The allegations regarding Accuser-3 should be stricken.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004224",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Accuser-1",
      "Accuser-2",
      "Accuser-3",
      "Mr. Greebel"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "E.D.N.Y.",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "05/20/21",
      "Aug. 4, 2017"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "286",
      "15-cr-637 (KAM)",
      "2017 WL 3610570",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004224"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the government's allegations and the defendant's motion to strike certain allegations. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}