mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006699.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "449",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 449 Filed 11/12/21 Page 6 of 8\nfrom proof specific to the offense charged.\" Old Chief v. United States, at 180. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides that \"[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, ... or by considerations of ... needless presentation of cumulative evidence.\" The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 403 define \"undue prejudice\" as an \"undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.\" See United States v. Salim, 189 F. Supp. 2d 93, 98 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).\nHere, any probative value of the items is substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice to Ms. Maxwell and confusion of the issues. Introduction of Exhibits 251 and 288 will likely necessitate Defense production of evidence surrounding the photographs including testimony from .\nThere is no Government witness who claims that they ever saw or used the \"Twin Torpedos\" allegedly seized in 2005. To the extent the Government claims the items are relevant to establish that Epstein used sex toys, any probative value of this \"fact\" is outweighed by prejudice to Ms. Maxwell.\nThe 2019 photograph of Ms. Maxwell have no role in any allegation here. To the extent that the Government claims that they intend to establish an intimate relationship between Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein, that fact is provable by other photographs and testimony.\nThe Manual contains multiple hearsay statements and reflects a lifestyle that many jurors may find offensive. Given the lack of foundation related to the anonymous, unsigned and unauthenticated document any marginal relevance is outweighed by issues of confusion, speculation and prejudice.\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00006699",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 449 Filed 11/12/21 Page 6 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "from proof specific to the offense charged.\" Old Chief v. United States, at 180. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides that \"[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, ... or by considerations of ... needless presentation of cumulative evidence.\" The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 403 define \"undue prejudice\" as an \"undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.\" See United States v. Salim, 189 F. Supp. 2d 93, 98 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).\nHere, any probative value of the items is substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice to Ms. Maxwell and confusion of the issues. Introduction of Exhibits 251 and 288 will likely necessitate Defense production of evidence surrounding the photographs including testimony from .\nThere is no Government witness who claims that they ever saw or used the \"Twin Torpedos\" allegedly seized in 2005. To the extent the Government claims the items are relevant to establish that Epstein used sex toys, any probative value of this \"fact\" is outweighed by prejudice to Ms. Maxwell.\nThe 2019 photograph of Ms. Maxwell have no role in any allegation here. To the extent that the Government claims that they intend to establish an intimate relationship between Ms. Maxwell and Mr. Epstein, that fact is provable by other photographs and testimony.\nThe Manual contains multiple hearsay statements and reflects a lifestyle that many jurors may find offensive. Given the lack of foundation related to the anonymous, unsigned and unauthenticated document any marginal relevance is outweighed by issues of confusion, speculation and prejudice.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006699",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Old Chief",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Mr. Epstein",
      "Salim"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21",
      "2005",
      "2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 449",
      "Exhibits 251",
      "288",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006699"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case United States v. Maxwell. The text discusses the admissibility of certain evidence and the potential prejudice it may cause. There is a redacted section in the text."
}