mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007067.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "16",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 16 of 127 16 LB1TMAX1 by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, (3) about the scope and timeline of investigation in New York, and (4) other evidence that demonstrates the government's motives for investigating Ms. Maxwell. The Court's analysis here is guided by four principles set by the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court. First, because the government has no duty to employ, in the course of a single investigation, any particular investigative technique, the failure to utilize some particular technique does not tend to show that a defendant is not guilty of the crime of which he's been charged and is therefore irrelevant. United States v. Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50, (2d Cir. 2000). That's the first legal principle that frames the discussion here. Second, arguments that the government had an improper motive generally must be directed to the Court rather than the jury. United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072, (2d Cir. 1997); see also, United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2011). Third legal principle: There is no per se bar on admitting evidence of the government's charging decisions. Rather, the Court must -- I will quote here -- \"inquire into its relevance and probative value to the respective case.\" United States v. White, 692 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2012); see also, United States v. Ngono, 801 F.App'x. 19 (2d Cir. 2020). SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007067",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 16 of 127 16",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LB1TMAX1 by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, (3) about the scope and timeline of investigation in New York, and (4) other evidence that demonstrates the government's motives for investigating Ms. Maxwell. The Court's analysis here is guided by four principles set by the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court. First, because the government has no duty to employ, in the course of a single investigation, any particular investigative technique, the failure to utilize some particular technique does not tend to show that a defendant is not guilty of the crime of which he's been charged and is therefore irrelevant. United States v. Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50, (2d Cir. 2000). That's the first legal principle that frames the discussion here. Second, arguments that the government had an improper motive generally must be directed to the Court rather than the jury. United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072, (2d Cir. 1997); see also, United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2011). Third legal principle: There is no per se bar on admitting evidence of the government's charging decisions. Rather, the Court must -- I will quote here -- \"inquire into its relevance and probative value to the respective case.\" United States v. White, 692 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2012); see also, United States v. Ngono, 801 F.App'x. 19 (2d Cir. 2020).",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007067",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Attorney's Office",
      "Southern District Reporters, P.C.",
      "Second Circuit",
      "Supreme Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21",
      "2000",
      "1997",
      "2011",
      "2012",
      "2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "204 F.3d 50",
      "103 F.3d 1072",
      "634 F.3d 127",
      "692 F.3d 235",
      "801 F.App'x. 19",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007067"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. It is typed and contains legal terminology and references to court cases. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}