mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006476.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "59",
    "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 59 of 69\n\nBecause nothing requires Ms. Maxwell to advise the government in advance of the evidence she intends to admit at trial or why that evidence is relevant, this Court should deny the government's motion. If Ms. Maxwell's attorneys have a good-faith belief that evidence will be admissible, they can refer to that evidence in opening statement. ABA Criminal Justice Standards, Defense Function, Standard 4-7.5(b) Opening Statement at Trial (\"Defense counsel's opening statement at trial should be confined to a fair statement of the case from defense counsel's perspective, and discussion of evidence that defense counsel reasonably believes in good faith will be available, offered, and admitted.\") When the defense offers evidence, the government can make any objections it thinks are appropriate, and this Court can rule on the objections in context. See United States v. Rounds, No. 10-CR-239S (1)(2)(3), 2015 WL 5918372, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2015) (\"Without hearing the evidence in context, this Court cannot enter a blanket pretrial ruling. The government's motion in limine is therefore denied as premature, without prejudice to the government raising this issue at an appropriate time during trial.\")\n\nB. The Referenced Evidence Demonstrates that Jeffrey Epstein Committed Acts of Abuse -- Without Ms. Maxwell's Knowledge or Participation -- May Be Relevant to Existence of Conspiracy or Knowledge of Its Illegal Objectives.\n\nThe government seeks to exclude evidence that \"many victims who were sexually abused by Epstein...did not have personal interactions or dealings with the defendant, including during the time period of the charged conspiracy.\" Mot. at 42. The government characterizes this evidence as \"good acts\" of Ms. Maxwell (id. at 41-42); they are neither \"good,\" nor Ms. Maxwell's \"acts.\" Rather, relying on inapposite cases, the government seeks to exclude as \"propensity\" evidence the fact that Mr. Epstein sexually abused minors (other than the specified Accusers) without Ms. Maxwell's knowledge and involvement. The government conveniently overlooks that:",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 59 of 69",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Because nothing requires Ms. Maxwell to advise the government in advance of the evidence she intends to admit at trial or why that evidence is relevant, this Court should deny the government's motion. If Ms. Maxwell's attorneys have a good-faith belief that evidence will be admissible, they can refer to that evidence in opening statement. ABA Criminal Justice Standards, Defense Function, Standard 4-7.5(b) Opening Statement at Trial (\"Defense counsel's opening statement at trial should be confined to a fair statement of the case from defense counsel's perspective, and discussion of evidence that defense counsel reasonably believes in good faith will be available, offered, and admitted.\") When the defense offers evidence, the government can make any objections it thinks are appropriate, and this Court can rule on the objections in context. See United States v. Rounds, No. 10-CR-239S (1)(2)(3), 2015 WL 5918372, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2015) (\"Without hearing the evidence in context, this Court cannot enter a blanket pretrial ruling. The government's motion in limine is therefore denied as premature, without prejudice to the government raising this issue at an appropriate time during trial.\")",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The Referenced Evidence Demonstrates that Jeffrey Epstein Committed Acts of Abuse -- Without Ms. Maxwell's Knowledge or Participation -- May Be Relevant to Existence of Conspiracy or Knowledge of Its Illegal Objectives.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government seeks to exclude evidence that \"many victims who were sexually abused by Epstein...did not have personal interactions or dealings with the defendant, including during the time period of the charged conspiracy.\" Mot. at 42. The government characterizes this evidence as \"good acts\" of Ms. Maxwell (id. at 41-42); they are neither \"good,\" nor Ms. Maxwell's \"acts.\" Rather, relying on inapposite cases, the government seeks to exclude as \"propensity\" evidence the fact that Mr. Epstein sexually abused minors (other than the specified Accusers) without Ms. Maxwell's knowledge and involvement. The government conveniently overlooks that:",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "51",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006476",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Mr. Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "ABA"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "W.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21",
      "Oct. 9, 2015"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 439",
      "10-CR-239S",
      "2015 WL 5918372",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006476"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, with discussions on the admissibility of certain evidence and references to legal standards and previous cases."
}