mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009594.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "32",
    "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 32 of 51\nwhich Kellen took nude photographs of Carolyn for Epstein. (Tr. 1529). In short, the S2 Indictment charged—and the proof at trial established—that there was an additional participant in the sex trafficking conspiracy who was not involved in the Mann Act conspiracies.\n4. Overlap of Time\nCount Three charged conduct spanning from 1994 to 2004. Count Five charged conduct spanning from 2001 to 2004. Of the multiple overt acts charged in Count Three of the S2 Indictment, only one occurred during the timeframe of the conspiracy charged in Count Five: an overt act regarding efforts to solicit Carolyn to travel with the defendant and Epstein. (Dkt. No. 187, ¶ 19(e)). Aside from that single overt act, no other overt act charged in Count Three occurred within the timeframe of the conspiracy charged in Count Five. Put simply, the gravamen of the offense conduct in Count Three occurred in the 1990s, while the offense conduct charged in Count Five took place in the 2000s. Thus, although there is some degree of overlap in time frames between the two counts, it is minimal at best. Accordingly, this factor weighs against a claim of multiplicity, or at best is neutral.\n5. Geographic Scope\nAlthough the evidence at trial concerned events in multiple states, at Epstein’s multiple properties, the offense conduct in Count Three concerned transporting minors from Florida to New York, for purposes of sexually abusing victims in New York. By contrast, Count Five charged a sex trafficking conspiracy which, as the Court instructed the jury, could be established by proof of conduct that had a minimal effect on interstate commerce, irrespective of whether victims crossed state lines. (Tr. 3041-42). As a result, the conspiracy in Count Three was focused on travel to state lines.\n31\nDOJ-OGR-00009594",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 32 of 51",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "which Kellen took nude photographs of Carolyn for Epstein. (Tr. 1529). In short, the S2 Indictment charged—and the proof at trial established—that there was an additional participant in the sex trafficking conspiracy who was not involved in the Mann Act conspiracies.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4. Overlap of Time",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Count Three charged conduct spanning from 1994 to 2004. Count Five charged conduct spanning from 2001 to 2004. Of the multiple overt acts charged in Count Three of the S2 Indictment, only one occurred during the timeframe of the conspiracy charged in Count Five: an overt act regarding efforts to solicit Carolyn to travel with the defendant and Epstein. (Dkt. No. 187, ¶ 19(e)). Aside from that single overt act, no other overt act charged in Count Three occurred within the timeframe of the conspiracy charged in Count Five. Put simply, the gravamen of the offense conduct in Count Three occurred in the 1990s, while the offense conduct charged in Count Five took place in the 2000s. Thus, although there is some degree of overlap in time frames between the two counts, it is minimal at best. Accordingly, this factor weighs against a claim of multiplicity, or at best is neutral.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5. Geographic Scope",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although the evidence at trial concerned events in multiple states, at Epstein’s multiple properties, the offense conduct in Count Three concerned transporting minors from Florida to New York, for purposes of sexually abusing victims in New York. By contrast, Count Five charged a sex trafficking conspiracy which, as the Court instructed the jury, could be established by proof of conduct that had a minimal effect on interstate commerce, irrespective of whether victims crossed state lines. (Tr. 3041-42). As a result, the conspiracy in Count Three was focused on travel to state lines.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "31",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009594",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Kellen",
      "Carolyn",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Florida",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "1994",
      "2001",
      "2004",
      "02/25/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "621",
      "Dkt. No. 187",
      "Tr. 1529",
      "Tr. 3041-42",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009594"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a sex trafficking case involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text discusses the overlap of time and geographic scope between different counts in the indictment. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}