mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021004.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "21",
    "document_number": "657",
    "date": "04/29/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page178 of 221\nA-378\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 21 of 45\n\nenccouraged her to massage Epstein's feet, and that the Defendant then gave her a massage during\nwhich the Defendant touched Annie's breasts. Id. at 2083–86. As noted above, Carolyn testified\nthat the Defendant paid her for performing sexualized massages on Epstein. She also testified\nthat Epstein and the Defendant asked her about her life and family and discussed sexual topics\nwith her. Id. at 1533–36. Epstein then invited her to travel generally, and the Defendant invited\nher to travel to Epstein's private island in the Caribbean. Id. at 1535, 1540. A reasonable juror\ncould have concluded that the Defendant's and Epstein's actions, including their efforts to\nnormalize sexual conduct and invitations for underage girls to travel to New Mexico and the\nCaribbean, were in furtherance of the conspiracy's goal of transporting minors to New York for\nthe purpose of engaging in sexual activity illegal under New York law. Finally, although the\njury was instructed that it could not convict the Defendant solely on the basis of Kate's\ntestimony, her testimony corroborated the testimony of other witnesses as to the Defendant's\nknowledge and role in the conspiracy. Id. at 1177–90. The Court concludes that this evidence\nwas sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict the Defendant for conspiring to transport\nindividuals in interstate commerce with intent to engage in sexual activity illegal under New\nYork law.\n\nAccordingly, the Court denies the Defendant's Rule 29 motion for a judgment of\nacquittal.\n\nIII. The Court denies the Defendant's motion claiming a constructive amendment or\nprejudicial variance.\n\nThe Defendant also seeks to vacate her convictions as to Counts One, Three, and Four\n(the Mann Act counts) pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. She contends that the\njury convicted her of intending that Jane engage in sexual activity in New Mexico, rather than\nNew York, thus resulting in a constructive amendment of the Indictment, or in the alternative, a\n\n21\nDOJ-OGR-00021004",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page178 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-378",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 21 of 45",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "encouraged her to massage Epstein's feet, and that the Defendant then gave her a massage during\nwhich the Defendant touched Annie's breasts. Id. at 2083–86. As noted above, Carolyn testified\nthat the Defendant paid her for performing sexualized massages on Epstein. She also testified\nthat Epstein and the Defendant asked her about her life and family and discussed sexual topics\nwith her. Id. at 1533–36. Epstein then invited her to travel generally, and the Defendant invited\nher to travel to Epstein's private island in the Caribbean. Id. at 1535, 1540. A reasonable juror\ncould have concluded that the Defendant's and Epstein's actions, including their efforts to\nnormalize sexual conduct and invitations for underage girls to travel to New Mexico and the\nCaribbean, were in furtherance of the conspiracy's goal of transporting minors to New York for\nthe purpose of engaging in sexual activity illegal under New York law. Finally, although the\njury was instructed that it could not convict the Defendant solely on the basis of Kate's\ntestimony, her testimony corroborated the testimony of other witnesses as to the Defendant's\nknowledge and role in the conspiracy. Id. at 1177–90. The Court concludes that this evidence\nwas sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict the Defendant for conspiring to transport\nindividuals in interstate commerce with intent to engage in sexual activity illegal under New\nYork law.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendant's Rule 29 motion for a judgment of\nacquittal.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. The Court denies the Defendant's motion claiming a constructive amendment or\nprejudicial variance.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Defendant also seeks to vacate her convictions as to Counts One, Three, and Four\n(the Mann Act counts) pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. She contends that the\njury convicted her of intending that Jane engage in sexual activity in New Mexico, rather than\nNew York, thus resulting in a constructive amendment of the Indictment, or in the alternative, a",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "21",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021004",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Defendant",
      "Carolyn",
      "Kate",
      "Jane",
      "Annie"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "New Mexico",
      "Caribbean"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "04/29/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 657",
      "Rule 29",
      "Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33",
      "Counts One",
      "Three",
      "Four",
      "A-378",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021004"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving the Defendant and Jeffrey Epstein. The text discusses the Defendant's actions and the court's decision regarding her motions. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}