mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004288.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "23",
    "document_number": "293",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 23 of 32\n\nspecified in the NPA, Epstein had to fulfill a series of terms and conditions. These included: (1) pleading guilty in Florida state court to one count of solicitation of prostitution and one count of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, (2) registering as a federal sex offender, (3) paying for an attorney to represent his victims to sue him for personal injuries, and (4) waiving his right to contest any damages awarded in those lawsuits up to an agreed-upon amount. (Ex. B at 2-5 of 7). One of the government's \"key objectives\" in the NPA was \"to preserve a federal remedy\" for Epstein's alleged victims. (Ex. D ¶ 5). Epstein fully performed these conditions and paid over $12.5 million in settlements to multiple alleged victims. (Ex. H). Indeed, Epstein paid [REDACTED] to the person we believe to be Accuser-4 and her attorneys. (Id.; Ex. I).\n\nThe USAO-SDNY cannot now seek additional punishment for the same offenses that were resolved by the NPA. Courts employ different tests to determine whether two offenses are the same for Double Jeopardy purposes. To determine whether a successive conspiracy prosecution is distinct from a previous conspiracy prosecution charged under the same statute, courts evaluate the so-called Korfant factors; namely:\n\n(1) the criminal offenses charged in successive indictments;\n(2) the overlap of participants;\n(3) the overlap of time;\n(4) similarity of operation;\n(5) the existence of common overt acts;\n(6) the geographic scope of the alleged conspiracies or location where overt acts occurred;\n(7) common objectives; and\n(8) the degree of interdependence between alleged distinct conspiracies.\n\nLopez, 356 F.3d at 468 (quoting United States v. Korfant, 771 F.2d 660, 662 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam)). \"[I]f a defendant makes a non-frivolous showing that two indictments in fact charge only one conspiracy, the burden shifts to the prosecution to show, by a preponderance of the\n\n19\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004288",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 23 of 32",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "specified in the NPA, Epstein had to fulfill a series of terms and conditions. These included: (1) pleading guilty in Florida state court to one count of solicitation of prostitution and one count of solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, (2) registering as a federal sex offender, (3) paying for an attorney to represent his victims to sue him for personal injuries, and (4) waiving his right to contest any damages awarded in those lawsuits up to an agreed-upon amount. (Ex. B at 2-5 of 7). One of the government's \"key objectives\" in the NPA was \"to preserve a federal remedy\" for Epstein's alleged victims. (Ex. D ¶ 5). Epstein fully performed these conditions and paid over $12.5 million in settlements to multiple alleged victims. (Ex. H). Indeed, Epstein paid [REDACTED] to the person we believe to be Accuser-4 and her attorneys. (Id.; Ex. I).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The USAO-SDNY cannot now seek additional punishment for the same offenses that were resolved by the NPA. Courts employ different tests to determine whether two offenses are the same for Double Jeopardy purposes. To determine whether a successive conspiracy prosecution is distinct from a previous conspiracy prosecution charged under the same statute, courts evaluate the so-called Korfant factors; namely:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(1) the criminal offenses charged in successive indictments;\n(2) the overlap of participants;\n(3) the overlap of time;\n(4) similarity of operation;\n(5) the existence of common overt acts;\n(6) the geographic scope of the alleged conspiracies or location where overt acts occurred;\n(7) common objectives; and\n(8) the degree of interdependence between alleged distinct conspiracies.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Lopez, 356 F.3d at 468 (quoting United States v. Korfant, 771 F.2d 660, 662 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam)). \"[I]f a defendant makes a non-frivolous showing that two indictments in fact charge only one conspiracy, the burden shifts to the prosecution to show, by a preponderance of the",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "19",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004288",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Accuser-4"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO-SDNY"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 293",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004288"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document contains a redacted amount paid to Accuser-4 and her attorneys. The document is a court filing related to the case against Epstein."
}