mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021022.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "39",
    "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, Page196 of 221\nA-396\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 39 of 45\n\nthe Government's investigation was relatively recent, e.g., Trial Tr. at 354 (Jane), 1245 (Kate),\n1680-84 (Carolyn), suggesting that an earlier prosecution was not feasible.\n\nEven on the first step of the inquiry, the Defendant has failed to demonstrate that she\nsuffered actual and substantial prejudice from delay. United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 CR\n541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018). Substantial prejudice is a\nstringent standard. The Defendant's \"proof of prejudice must be definite and not speculative.\"\nUnited States v. Birney, 686 F.2d 102, 105-06 (2d Cir. 1982). Actual prejudice \"is commonly\ndemonstrated by the loss of documentary evidence or the unavailability of a key witness.\"\nCornielle, 171 F.3d at 752. But \"claims of mere loss of memory resulting from the passage of\ntime have been held to be insufficient.\" Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *4. And for any\nevidence lost because of delay, the Defendant \"must 'demonstrate how (the loss of evidence) is\nprejudicial' to her.\" Birney, 686 F.2d at 106 (quoting United States v. Mays, 549 F.2d 670, 677\n(9th Cir. 1977)).\n\nThe Defendant identifies two major sets of lost evidence that, she says, demonstrate\nactual prejudice to her defense at trial. First, she points to documentary evidence absent at trial:\n(1) flight records, including passenger manifests and records from Epstein's travel agent, that\nmay have been more detailed than the flight logs entered at trial; (2) financial documents,\nincluding bank records and credit card records, which would have revealed more about the\nDefendant's receipt of funds from Epstein and could have been used to verify or disprove certain\ndates; (3) a complete set of the Defendant's phone records; and (4) Epstein's property records for\nboth his New York and New Mexico residences. Second, the Defendant identifies four deceased\nwitnesses: Albert Pinto and Roger Salhi, architects that built and renovated Epstein's residences\nin Florida, New York, and New Mexico; Sally Markham, a property manager for Epstein in the\n\n39\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021022",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page196 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-396",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 39 of 45",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the Government's investigation was relatively recent, e.g., Trial Tr. at 354 (Jane), 1245 (Kate),\n1680-84 (Carolyn), suggesting that an earlier prosecution was not feasible.\n\nEven on the first step of the inquiry, the Defendant has failed to demonstrate that she\nsuffered actual and substantial prejudice from delay. United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 CR\n541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018). Substantial prejudice is a\nstringent standard. The Defendant's \"proof of prejudice must be definite and not speculative.\"\nUnited States v. Birney, 686 F.2d 102, 105-06 (2d Cir. 1982). Actual prejudice \"is commonly\ndemonstrated by the loss of documentary evidence or the unavailability of a key witness.\"\nCornielle, 171 F.3d at 752. But \"claims of mere loss of memory resulting from the passage of\ntime have been held to be insufficient.\" Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *4. And for any\nevidence lost because of delay, the Defendant \"must 'demonstrate how (the loss of evidence) is\nprejudicial' to her.\" Birney, 686 F.2d at 106 (quoting United States v. Mays, 549 F.2d 670, 677\n(9th Cir. 1977)).\n\nThe Defendant identifies two major sets of lost evidence that, she says, demonstrate\nactual prejudice to her defense at trial. First, she points to documentary evidence absent at trial:\n(1) flight records, including passenger manifests and records from Epstein's travel agent, that\nmay have been more detailed than the flight logs entered at trial; (2) financial documents,\nincluding bank records and credit card records, which would have revealed more about the\nDefendant's receipt of funds from Epstein and could have been used to verify or disprove certain\ndates; (3) a complete set of the Defendant's phone records; and (4) Epstein's property records for\nboth his New York and New Mexico residences. Second, the Defendant identifies four deceased\nwitnesses: Albert Pinto and Roger Salhi, architects that built and renovated Epstein's residences\nin Florida, New York, and New Mexico; Sally Markham, a property manager for Epstein in the",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "39",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021022",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Kate",
      "Carolyn",
      "Pierre-Louis",
      "Birney",
      "Cornielle",
      "Mays",
      "Epstein",
      "Albert Pinto",
      "Roger Salhi",
      "Sally Markham"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "New Mexico",
      "Florida",
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "2d Cir.",
      "9th Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "04/29/22",
      "Aug. 9, 2018",
      "1977"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "3475901",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 657",
      "No. 16 CR 541",
      "2018 WL 4043140",
      "686 F.2d 102",
      "171 F.3d 752",
      "549 F.2d 670",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021022"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}