mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011435.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "12",
    "document_number": "732",
    "date": "07/14/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 732 Filed 07/14/22 Page 12 of 25\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nNovember 22, 2021\nPage 12\nD. The materials requested are admissible.\nThe government does not dispute the admissibility of the payment records, the claims release forms, or the communications. Gov. Mot. at 3-8. According to the government, however, the submissions to the EVCP are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Gov. Mot. at 6-7.\nNeither Accuser-1 nor Witness-3 dispute the admissibility of any of the materials.\nFor its part, the EVCP argues that all the materials Ms. Maxwell seeks are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 408. As elaborated below, neither Rule 403 nor Rule 408 renders the materials inadmissible.\nWe begin with the government's Rule 403 argument. To start, the government's 403 argument is premature because the Court has not yet reviewed the subpoenaed material in camera. In any event, it's of no moment that the government says it would have to “contextualize” the accusers' statements to the EVCP to argue the statements are not inconsistent with their trial testimony. Gov. Mot. at 6-7. That is always the case with prior inconsistent statements; the proponent of the evidence asks the jury to disbelieve the trial testimony because the witness said something different on an earlier occasion, while the opponent tries to minimize or explain away any inconsistency. That is not a reason to exclude the statements themselves, nor is the government's vague complaint that this process is a “waste of time.” The accusers' ever-evolving allegations are central to this case.\nThe EVCP's Rule 408 argument next. Rule 408 says:\n(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible--on behalf of any party--either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:\nDOJ-OGR-00011435",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 732 Filed 07/14/22 Page 12 of 25",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nNovember 22, 2021\nPage 12",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "D. The materials requested are admissible.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government does not dispute the admissibility of the payment records, the claims release forms, or the communications. Gov. Mot. at 3-8. According to the government, however, the submissions to the EVCP are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Gov. Mot. at 6-7.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Neither Accuser-1 nor Witness-3 dispute the admissibility of any of the materials.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For its part, the EVCP argues that all the materials Ms. Maxwell seeks are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 408. As elaborated below, neither Rule 403 nor Rule 408 renders the materials inadmissible.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "We begin with the government's Rule 403 argument. To start, the government's 403 argument is premature because the Court has not yet reviewed the subpoenaed material in camera. In any event, it's of no moment that the government says it would have to “contextualize” the accusers' statements to the EVCP to argue the statements are not inconsistent with their trial testimony. Gov. Mot. at 6-7. That is always the case with prior inconsistent statements; the proponent of the evidence asks the jury to disbelieve the trial testimony because the witness said something different on an earlier occasion, while the opponent tries to minimize or explain away any inconsistency. That is not a reason to exclude the statements themselves, nor is the government's vague complaint that this process is a “waste of time.” The accusers' ever-evolving allegations are central to this case.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The EVCP's Rule 408 argument next. Rule 408 says:\n(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible--on behalf of any party--either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011435",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Accuser-1",
      "Witness-3"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "EVCP"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "November 22, 2021",
      "07/14/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "732",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011435"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}