mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005828.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "45",
    "document_number": "397",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 45 of 84\nundertaken in furtherance of the charged conspiracy or be relevant to prove facts such as Maxwell's state of mind.\" (id. at 26-27).\n\nB. Applicable Law\n\nIt is axiomatic that the Government may offer proof of acts included within the indictment. Those are the very acts the Government seeks to prove at trial. See United States v. Dugue, 763 F. App'x 93, 94 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order) (\"[A]n act that is alleged to have been done in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy is not an 'other' act within the meaning of Rule 404(b); rather, it is part of the very act charged.\" (alterations and citation omitted)); Quinones, 511 F.3d at 308 (\"While Rule 404(b) identifies various rationales . . . for which evidence of bad acts other than those charged in the indictment may be admitted at trial, the rule has no bearing on the admissibility of acts that are part of the charged crime.\" (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted)).\n\nAs discussed above, see supra Section II, direct evidence is \"not confined to that which directly establishes an element of the crime.\" Gonzalez, 110 F.3d at 942, see id. at 942 (rejecting a claim that the evidence fell under Rule 404(b)). It also includes actions or statements that (a) \"arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense,\" (b) are \"inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense,\" or (c) are \"necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial.\" Carboni, 204 F.3d at 44.\n\nIn addition, in a conspiracy case, \"the Government need not set out with precision each and every act in furtherance of the conspiracy.\" United States v. LaSpina, 299 F.3d 165, 182 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, \"where the Government must prove a conspiracy existed, evidence of acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy is . . . direct evidence of the acts charged in the Indictment.\" United States v. Townsend, 44\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005828",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 45 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "undertaken in furtherance of the charged conspiracy or be relevant to prove facts such as Maxwell's state of mind.\" (id. at 26-27).\n\nB. Applicable Law\n\nIt is axiomatic that the Government may offer proof of acts included within the indictment. Those are the very acts the Government seeks to prove at trial. See United States v. Dugue, 763 F. App'x 93, 94 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order) (\"[A]n act that is alleged to have been done in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy is not an 'other' act within the meaning of Rule 404(b); rather, it is part of the very act charged.\" (alterations and citation omitted)); Quinones, 511 F.3d at 308 (\"While Rule 404(b) identifies various rationales . . . for which evidence of bad acts other than those charged in the indictment may be admitted at trial, the rule has no bearing on the admissibility of acts that are part of the charged crime.\" (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted)).\n\nAs discussed above, see supra Section II, direct evidence is \"not confined to that which directly establishes an element of the crime.\" Gonzalez, 110 F.3d at 942, see id. at 942 (rejecting a claim that the evidence fell under Rule 404(b)). It also includes actions or statements that (a) \"arose out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense,\" (b) are \"inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged offense,\" or (c) are \"necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial.\" Carboni, 204 F.3d at 44.\n\nIn addition, in a conspiracy case, \"the Government need not set out with precision each and every act in furtherance of the conspiracy.\" United States v. LaSpina, 299 F.3d 165, 182 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, \"where the Government must prove a conspiracy existed, evidence of acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy is . . . direct evidence of the acts charged in the Indictment.\" United States v. Townsend, 44",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005828",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "2019",
      "2002"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "397",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005828"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a conspiracy case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}