mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020822.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "204 of 208",
    "document_number": "57",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page204 of 208\nA-200\nFBI. The Court has ordered the Government to disclose all Jencks Act and Giglio material by October 11, 2021. Dkt. No. 297 at 1. That date is seven weeks in advance of trial. The Court sees no reason to depart from the rule in this district that impeachment material of anticipated witnesses does not warrant an order compelling immediate disclosure. See United States v. Campo Flores, No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016). Seven weeks in advance of trial is far more time than is standard in this district and no showing has been made that it will be insufficient for Maxwell to make effective use of the information in preparation of her defense.\nTo the extent Maxwell argues that the Government is in possession of prior statements that are exculpatory under Brady (for example, if a witness denied Maxwell's involvement), rather than useful only for standard impeachment purposes, it is of course the Government's obligation to \"disclose such information to the defense promptly after its existence becomes known to the Government so that the defense may make effective use of the information in the preparation of its case.\" Dkt. 68 at 1. The context of questions and answers surely matters as to whether a statement (or omission) is exculpatory, impeaching, or neither. It is for the Government to make these assessments ex ante and fully meet its disclosure obligations so that the defense may make effective use of any such information in preparation for trial. See United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 144-46 (2d Cir. 2001). The Government has repeatedly confirmed that it understands those obligations, and that it has met them and will continue to meet them. Accordingly, the motion to compel the immediate disclosure of any of Minor Victim-4's prior statements in which she did not mention Maxwell is denied.\nof objection, the Court presumes the Government intends to disclose this information to Maxwell at the same time that as it discloses Jencks Act material.\n13\nDOJ-OGR-00020822",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page204 of 208",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-200",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "FBI. The Court has ordered the Government to disclose all Jencks Act and Giglio material by October 11, 2021. Dkt. No. 297 at 1. That date is seven weeks in advance of trial. The Court sees no reason to depart from the rule in this district that impeachment material of anticipated witnesses does not warrant an order compelling immediate disclosure. See United States v. Campo Flores, No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC), 2016 WL 5946472, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2016). Seven weeks in advance of trial is far more time than is standard in this district and no showing has been made that it will be insufficient for Maxwell to make effective use of the information in preparation of her defense.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To the extent Maxwell argues that the Government is in possession of prior statements that are exculpatory under Brady (for example, if a witness denied Maxwell's involvement), rather than useful only for standard impeachment purposes, it is of course the Government's obligation to \"disclose such information to the defense promptly after its existence becomes known to the Government so that the defense may make effective use of the information in the preparation of its case.\" Dkt. 68 at 1. The context of questions and answers surely matters as to whether a statement (or omission) is exculpatory, impeaching, or neither. It is for the Government to make these assessments ex ante and fully meet its disclosure obligations so that the defense may make effective use of any such information in preparation for trial. See United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132, 144-46 (2d Cir. 2001). The Government has repeatedly confirmed that it understands those obligations, and that it has met them and will continue to meet them. Accordingly, the motion to compel the immediate disclosure of any of Minor Victim-4's prior statements in which she did not mention Maxwell is denied.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "of objection, the Court presumes the Government intends to disclose this information to Maxwell at the same time that as it discloses Jencks Act material.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "13",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020822",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "October 11, 2021",
      "Oct. 12, 2016",
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 57",
      "Dkt. No. 297",
      "No. 15 Cr. 765 (PAC)",
      "Dkt. 68",
      "267 F.3d 132",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020822"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 204 of 208."
}