mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006893.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "13",
    "document_number": "453",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 453 Filed 11/12/21 Page 13 of 52\n\n\"In assessing whether a district court properly admitted other act evidence, we consider whether (1) it was offered for a proper purpose; (2) it was relevant to a material issue in dispute; (3) its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect; and (4) the trial court gave an appropriate limiting instruction to the jury if so requested by the defendant.\" United States v. Arroyo, 600 F. App'x 11, 13 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order) (quoting United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). The Emails are offered for improper purposes, i.e., propensity, are not relevant to any material issue in dispute and their probative value is substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect.\n\nA. The Emails Bear No Relationship to the Charged Conspiracy, Reflect Pure Propensity Evidence, and Otherwise are Unduly Prejudicial to Uninvolved Third-Party Adults\n\nThe government's argument for admissibility of the Emails2 is breathtaking in its claims and unsupported by admissible evidence. Without expert testimony or even bothering to interview the Emails' recipients, the government contends the Emails represent \"direct evidence\" of a conspiracy (to recruit, groom, and sexually abuse minor females or to entice, transport or traffic them for Jeffrey Epstein's sexual pleasure) that Ms. Maxwell offered on two isolated occasions to arrange adult female dates for adult men completely uninvolved in this case. The government further claims the Emails show she \"was using her ability to provide access to women as a form of social currency with other influential men with whom she sought to ingratiate herself.\" Resp. at 36.\n\nNothing in the Emails' content shows that Ms. Maxwell was \"provid[ing] access,\" \"using social currency,\" that the men were \"influential,\" or that she was seeking to \"ingratiate herself\" to them. In the emails, Ms. Maxwell doesn't ask for anything in return from the men, doesn't\n\n2 The proffered evidence is found at GX 401-404, 409-410 and 413 (\"Emails\").\n\n7\nDOJ-OGR-00006893",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 453 Filed 11/12/21 Page 13 of 52",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"In assessing whether a district court properly admitted other act evidence, we consider whether (1) it was offered for a proper purpose; (2) it was relevant to a material issue in dispute; (3) its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect; and (4) the trial court gave an appropriate limiting instruction to the jury if so requested by the defendant.\" United States v. Arroyo, 600 F. App'x 11, 13 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order) (quoting United States v. LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004). The Emails are offered for improper purposes, i.e., propensity, are not relevant to any material issue in dispute and their probative value is substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. The Emails Bear No Relationship to the Charged Conspiracy, Reflect Pure Propensity Evidence, and Otherwise are Unduly Prejudicial to Uninvolved Third-Party Adults",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government's argument for admissibility of the Emails2 is breathtaking in its claims and unsupported by admissible evidence. Without expert testimony or even bothering to interview the Emails' recipients, the government contends the Emails represent \"direct evidence\" of a conspiracy (to recruit, groom, and sexually abuse minor females or to entice, transport or traffic them for Jeffrey Epstein's sexual pleasure) that Ms. Maxwell offered on two isolated occasions to arrange adult female dates for adult men completely uninvolved in this case. The government further claims the Emails show she \"was using her ability to provide access to women as a form of social currency with other influential men with whom she sought to ingratiate herself.\" Resp. at 36.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Nothing in the Emails' content shows that Ms. Maxwell was \"provid[ing] access,\" \"using social currency,\" that the men were \"influential,\" or that she was seeking to \"ingratiate herself\" to them. In the emails, Ms. Maxwell doesn't ask for anything in return from the men, doesn't",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 The proffered evidence is found at GX 401-404, 409-410 and 413 (\"Emails\").",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006893",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 453",
      "GX 401-404",
      "GX 409-410",
      "GX 413"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the admissibility of certain emails as evidence and argues that they are not relevant to the charged conspiracy and are prejudicial."
}