mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011306.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "714",
    "date": "07/12/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 714 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 7\n\ntime period\" suggests to the jury that the testimony will be that witness was above the local age of consent at all relevant times. That will not be the testimony at trial—for instance, Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-4 will testify that they were 14 when Epstein and the defendant first enticed or trafficked them into sexual activity, but, to complete the timeline of their interactions with Epstein and the defendant, will provide only brief testimony that they continued having sexual interactions with Epstein past the relevant age of consent for the Mann Act or sex trafficking counts. To be accurate, the instruction would need to clarify that the witness will testify that she reached the age of majority at some point during her testimony, not that she was over the age of consent, full stop.\n\nSecond, and relatedly, the defendant has indicated that she intends to dispute when certain events occurred and the ages of the victims at those times. A limiting instruction suggesting that the Minor Victims were \"above the age of consent\" or not engaged in \"illegal sexual activity\" would essentially instruct the jury that the Minor Victims were, in fact, above the age of consent at all relevant times, as the defense is expected to argue. Accordingly, at a minimum, any instruction on that issue should be balanced. If the Court explains to the jury that the Minor Victims were above the age of consent under some state's law at some point, such that they could not have engaged in \"illegal sexual activity,\" the Court should also explain that they may still have been under the age of consent for purposes of the New York offense alleged in the Indictment and 18 U.S.C. § 1591, such that they could still be under the age of consent required to prove the Mann Act and sex trafficking conspiracy counts.\n\nThird, the ages of consent in jurisdictions other than New York are not relevant to the factual question before the jury. To the extent a witness engaged in sexual activity that was lawful 3\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011306",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 714 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "time period\" suggests to the jury that the testimony will be that witness was above the local age of consent at all relevant times. That will not be the testimony at trial—for instance, Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-4 will testify that they were 14 when Epstein and the defendant first enticed or trafficked them into sexual activity, but, to complete the timeline of their interactions with Epstein and the defendant, will provide only brief testimony that they continued having sexual interactions with Epstein past the relevant age of consent for the Mann Act or sex trafficking counts. To be accurate, the instruction would need to clarify that the witness will testify that she reached the age of majority at some point during her testimony, not that she was over the age of consent, full stop.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, and relatedly, the defendant has indicated that she intends to dispute when certain events occurred and the ages of the victims at those times. A limiting instruction suggesting that the Minor Victims were \"above the age of consent\" or not engaged in \"illegal sexual activity\" would essentially instruct the jury that the Minor Victims were, in fact, above the age of consent at all relevant times, as the defense is expected to argue. Accordingly, at a minimum, any instruction on that issue should be balanced. If the Court explains to the jury that the Minor Victims were above the age of consent under some state's law at some point, such that they could not have engaged in \"illegal sexual activity,\" the Court should also explain that they may still have been under the age of consent for purposes of the New York offense alleged in the Indictment and 18 U.S.C. § 1591, such that they could still be under the age of consent required to prove the Mann Act and sex trafficking conspiracy counts.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Third, the ages of consent in jurisdictions other than New York are not relevant to the factual question before the jury. To the extent a witness engaged in sexual activity that was lawful",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011306",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Minor Victim-1",
      "Minor Victim-4"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/12/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 714",
      "18 U.S.C. § 1591",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011306"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a sex trafficking case involving Jeffrey Epstein and the defendant. The text discusses the ages of consent and the relevance of certain testimony to the case."
}