mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021757.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "document_number": "87",
    "date": "07/27/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page15 of 35\ninterviewed Virginia Roberts, who the Government elected not to call as a witness.\nAnd, of course, a broader immunity deal for co-conspirators accomplished what Epstein may not have been able to obtain more directly, namely co-conspirator immunity that would have insulated Epstein from criminal prosecutions elsewhere, where co-conspirators might otherwise have been forced to testify against him in return for leniency.\nThere is no question that the NPA did not contain standard federal plea agreement language. SA103 fn.120. The co-conspirator clause was, in the words of the Government, “unusual,” even “very unusual” and “pretty weird.” SA194, SA212 fn.258. Not surprisingly, the first iteration of this clause was proposed by the defense. SA95. It “preclude[d] the initiation of any and all criminal charges which might otherwise in the future be brought against [four named female assistants] or any employee of [a specific Epstein corporate entity] for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation.” Id. This demonstrates that, from the beginning, the defense sought immunity for third parties beyond the SDFL. The Government responded with a draft proposal that resolved the federal criminal liability of any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal conduct by those persons known to the USAO as of the date of the\n5 Notably, even in this iteration, Ms. Maxwell would have been protected as she was Epstein’s employee.\n9\nDOJ-OGR-00021757",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 87, 07/27/2023, 3548202, Page15 of 35",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "interviewed Virginia Roberts, who the Government elected not to call as a witness.\nAnd, of course, a broader immunity deal for co-conspirators accomplished what Epstein may not have been able to obtain more directly, namely co-conspirator immunity that would have insulated Epstein from criminal prosecutions elsewhere, where co-conspirators might otherwise have been forced to testify against him in return for leniency.\nThere is no question that the NPA did not contain standard federal plea agreement language. SA103 fn.120. The co-conspirator clause was, in the words of the Government, “unusual,” even “very unusual” and “pretty weird.” SA194, SA212 fn.258. Not surprisingly, the first iteration of this clause was proposed by the defense. SA95. It “preclude[d] the initiation of any and all criminal charges which might otherwise in the future be brought against [four named female assistants] or any employee of [a specific Epstein corporate entity] for any criminal charge that arises out of the ongoing federal investigation.” Id. This demonstrates that, from the beginning, the defense sought immunity for third parties beyond the SDFL. The Government responded with a draft proposal that resolved the federal criminal liability of any co-conspirators in the Southern District of Florida growing out of any criminal conduct by those persons known to the USAO as of the date of the",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5 Notably, even in this iteration, Ms. Maxwell would have been protected as she was Epstein’s employee.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021757",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Virginia Roberts",
      "Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "USAO"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/27/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 87",
      "3548202",
      "SA103",
      "SA194",
      "SA212",
      "SA95",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021757"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to the Epstein case. It contains legal language and references to specific sections and footnotes. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}