mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009585.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "23",
    "document_number": "621",
    "date": "02/25/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 23 of 51\n\n3. No Variance Occurred\nFor similar reasons, no variance occurred at trial. The evidence at trial did not prove any facts materially different from those alleged in Counts One through Four of the S2 Indictment. See Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at *31 (explaining that a variance occurs when “the evidence offered at trial proves facts materially different from those alleged in the indictment”). The S2 Indictment alleged that the defendant was Epstein’s close associate and co-conspirator who groomed minor victims, including Jane between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, and that the defendant and Epstein groomed minor victims for abuse in various places, including Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico. (See S2 Indictment ¶¶ 5, 9, 13). That is exactly what the Government proved at trial. It was no variance that the S2 Indictment did not specifically allege that Jane was abused in New Mexico—especially where, as here, that fact was offered as evidence of the conduct charged in the S2 Indictment, but was not by itself sufficient to convict the defendant. This proof does not differ from the S2 Indictment, much less materially. Accordingly, the S2 Indictment and proof “substantially correspond,” the defendant could not have been misled, and there is no variance. Khalupsky, 5 F.4th at 294.\nThe defendant argues that she was prejudiced because Jane recalled that she was abused during her New Mexico trip shortly before trial, which prevented the defendant from filing a motion to preclude the testimony or giving a limiting instruction before Jane’s testimony. (Def. Mot. at 16-18). This argument is belied by the record. As the defendant concedes, Jane has long recalled traveling to New Mexico. (Id. at 16-17). The defendant therefore had “fair and adequate notice” that the Mann Act conspiracies included conduct at Epstein’s New Mexico home, which\n22\nDOJ-OGR-00009585",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 23 of 51",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3. No Variance Occurred\nFor similar reasons, no variance occurred at trial. The evidence at trial did not prove any facts materially different from those alleged in Counts One through Four of the S2 Indictment. See Gross, 2017 WL 4685111, at *31 (explaining that a variance occurs when “the evidence offered at trial proves facts materially different from those alleged in the indictment”). The S2 Indictment alleged that the defendant was Epstein’s close associate and co-conspirator who groomed minor victims, including Jane between in or about 1994 and in or about 1997, and that the defendant and Epstein groomed minor victims for abuse in various places, including Epstein’s ranch in New Mexico. (See S2 Indictment ¶¶ 5, 9, 13). That is exactly what the Government proved at trial. It was no variance that the S2 Indictment did not specifically allege that Jane was abused in New Mexico—especially where, as here, that fact was offered as evidence of the conduct charged in the S2 Indictment, but was not by itself sufficient to convict the defendant. This proof does not differ from the S2 Indictment, much less materially. Accordingly, the S2 Indictment and proof “substantially correspond,” the defendant could not have been misled, and there is no variance. Khalupsky, 5 F.4th at 294.\nThe defendant argues that she was prejudiced because Jane recalled that she was abused during her New Mexico trip shortly before trial, which prevented the defendant from filing a motion to preclude the testimony or giving a limiting instruction before Jane’s testimony. (Def. Mot. at 16-18). This argument is belied by the record. As the defendant concedes, Jane has long recalled traveling to New Mexico. (Id. at 16-17). The defendant therefore had “fair and adequate notice” that the Mann Act conspiracies included conduct at Epstein’s New Mexico home, which",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "22",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009585",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Epstein",
      "Gross",
      "Khalupsky"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "New Mexico"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/25/22",
      "1994",
      "1997"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "621",
      "5 F.4th",
      "2017 WL 4685111"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Jeffrey Epstein and the defendant. The text discusses the issue of variance between the indictment and the evidence presented at trial. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}