mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005864.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "81",
    "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 81 of 84\n\nintention that they would engage in illegal or commercial sex acts, and conspiring to do, and aiding and abetting, the same. These events occurred during an ongoing course of conduct, in some instances during multi-year relationships. The ongoing relationships between the defendant, Epstein, and the victims is directly relevant, and the victims' accounts of these events are necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial. Indeed, given the complex relationships between victims and their abusers, these events are integral to the relationships that will be at the heart of the trial. The defendant repeatedly claims that there is no evidence she participated in or was aware of a rape specifically (Def. Mot. 11 at 1-2), but defense arguments about her knowledge and involvement are for the jury.\n\nThe defense argues that the Indictment does not allege that Epstein raped anyone, and so the rape is irrelevant. (Def. Mot. 11 at 2). That is a non sequitur. Indictments are not documents that contain all of the Government's evidence, and the defense cites no authority for the puzzling argument that witnesses cannot testifying using words that are not contained in an indictment. To the extent the defense understands the Indictment to allege only conspiracies to arrange for sexualized massages for Epstein (id. at 3), the defense is mistaken. The Indictment charges the defendant with conspiracies to arrange for \"sexual activity\" (Indictment ¶¶ 12, 18) and \"a commercial sex act\" (Id. ¶ 24).\n\nThe defense also argues that evidence of a rape does not satisfy Rule 403 balancing, because evidence of a rape is \"highly emotional and inflammatory.\" (Def. Mot. 11 at 3). This conclusory claim is insufficient to show prejudice to the defense. Testimony from victims in sex crimes trials can be very emotional when describing their abuse and the perpetrator. But that\n\n80\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005864",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 81 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "intention that they would engage in illegal or commercial sex acts, and conspiring to do, and aiding and abetting, the same. These events occurred during an ongoing course of conduct, in some instances during multi-year relationships. The ongoing relationships between the defendant, Epstein, and the victims is directly relevant, and the victims' accounts of these events are necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial. Indeed, given the complex relationships between victims and their abusers, these events are integral to the relationships that will be at the heart of the trial. The defendant repeatedly claims that there is no evidence she participated in or was aware of a rape specifically (Def. Mot. 11 at 1-2), but defense arguments about her knowledge and involvement are for the jury.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defense argues that the Indictment does not allege that Epstein raped anyone, and so the rape is irrelevant. (Def. Mot. 11 at 2). That is a non sequitur. Indictments are not documents that contain all of the Government's evidence, and the defense cites no authority for the puzzling argument that witnesses cannot testifying using words that are not contained in an indictment. To the extent the defense understands the Indictment to allege only conspiracies to arrange for sexualized massages for Epstein (id. at 3), the defense is mistaken. The Indictment charges the defendant with conspiracies to arrange for \"sexual activity\" (Indictment ¶¶ 12, 18) and \"a commercial sex act\" (Id. ¶ 24).",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defense also argues that evidence of a rape does not satisfy Rule 403 balancing, because evidence of a rape is \"highly emotional and inflammatory.\" (Def. Mot. 11 at 3). This conclusory claim is insufficient to show prejudice to the defense. Testimony from victims in sex crimes trials can be very emotional when describing their abuse and the perpetrator. But that",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "80",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005864",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "397",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005864"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text discusses the relevance of certain evidence and the defense's arguments regarding the indictment."
}