mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011137.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "691",
    "date": "11/22/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 691 Filed 11/22/21 Page 6 of 7\n\nSecond, even if Gershman's testimony was relevant, Rule 403 prejudice would substantially outweigh for the reasons given at the November 1 conference. Id. at 21-24. Gershman's testimony would be likely to confuse the jury by suggesting that the Government's choices of investigative techniques are relevant to guilt, it would conflict with the Court's anticipated jury instruction that the Government is not on trial, it would substantially delay the trial, and it would, at most, be cumulative of the Defense's arguments that there is inadequate evidence on which to find Ms. Maxwell guilty. Indeed, placing an expert imprimatur on these arguments would only enhance the Rule 403 prejudice.\n\nThird, apart from Rule 401 and 403, the Defense's disclosure of Gershman does not satisfy Rule 16. The Defense has listed only the general topics on which Gershman will testify, like \"investigation,\" \"media contact,\" and \"neutrality.\" Notice at 12. It does not mention Gershman's actual opinions on these topics or the bases for those opinions. Nor does the Defense's response brief add any detail about the content of Gershman's opinions. Def. Br. at 18. Indeed, the Defense's briefing on this issue mentions very little of Gershman's anticipated testimony. Therefore, even if Rules 401 and 403 were satisfied, the Court would exclude Gershman's testimony because the Defense has not yet satisfied Rule 16.\n\nIII. Conclusion\n\nThe Court therefore grants the Government's motion to preclude Gershman's expert testimony. Because this is a preliminary pre-trial ruling, it is possible that facts and circumstances at trial would alter the Court's analysis. In that event, the Defense must re-raise its request to admit Gershman as an expert witness.\n\n6\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011137",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 691 Filed 11/22/21 Page 6 of 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, even if Gershman's testimony was relevant, Rule 403 prejudice would substantially outweigh for the reasons given at the November 1 conference. Id. at 21-24. Gershman's testimony would be likely to confuse the jury by suggesting that the Government's choices of investigative techniques are relevant to guilt, it would conflict with the Court's anticipated jury instruction that the Government is not on trial, it would substantially delay the trial, and it would, at most, be cumulative of the Defense's arguments that there is inadequate evidence on which to find Ms. Maxwell guilty. Indeed, placing an expert imprimatur on these arguments would only enhance the Rule 403 prejudice.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Third, apart from Rule 401 and 403, the Defense's disclosure of Gershman does not satisfy Rule 16. The Defense has listed only the general topics on which Gershman will testify, like \"investigation,\" \"media contact,\" and \"neutrality.\" Notice at 12. It does not mention Gershman's actual opinions on these topics or the bases for those opinions. Nor does the Defense's response brief add any detail about the content of Gershman's opinions. Def. Br. at 18. Indeed, the Defense's briefing on this issue mentions very little of Gershman's anticipated testimony. Therefore, even if Rules 401 and 403 were satisfied, the Court would exclude Gershman's testimony because the Defense has not yet satisfied Rule 16.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. Conclusion",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court therefore grants the Government's motion to preclude Gershman's expert testimony. Because this is a preliminary pre-trial ruling, it is possible that facts and circumstances at trial would alter the Court's analysis. In that event, the Defense must re-raise its request to admit Gershman as an expert witness.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011137",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Gershman",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Defense",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "November 1",
      "11/22/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 691",
      "Rule 403",
      "Rule 401",
      "Rule 16",
      "Rule 403",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011137"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}