DOJ-OGR-00003009.json 6.0 KB

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384
  1. {
  2. "document_metadata": {
  3. "page_number": "75",
  4. "document_number": "204",
  5. "date": "04/16/21",
  6. "document_type": "court document",
  7. "has_handwriting": false,
  8. "has_stamps": false
  9. },
  10. "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 75 of 239\ncrimes or events. See, e.g., United States v. Scarpa, 897 F.2d 63, 70 (2d Cir. 1990) (“A defendant may not seek to establish h[er] innocence . . . through proof of the absence of criminal acts on specific occasions.”); United States v. Chambers, 800 F. App'x 43, 46 (2d Cir. 2020) (“A single occurrence of lawful conduct is 'simply irrelevant' to other occurrences of lawful conduct.” (quoting United States v. Walker, 191 F.3d 326, 336 (2d Cir. 1999)); United States v. Williams, 205 F.3d 23, 34 (2d Cir. 2000) (“We reject Williams's assertion that the evidence of innocent travel was necessary to rebut the government's allegation that Williams had been involved in other cocaine importations from Jamaica. Although the government did argue that Williams had been involved in other importations, it did not allege that Williams had engaged in drug activity during these particular trips.”); United States v. Fiumano, No. 14 Cr. 518 (JFK), 2016 WL 1629356, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016) (“The principle is rather elementary. A defendant charged with robbing a bank in Manhattan on April 22 cannot offer as evidence to disprove the charged crime that he did not rob the bank's branches in Brooklyn or the Bronx on April 22 or that he did not rob the Manhattan branch on April 20, 21, 23, and 24, because this evidence is irrelevant to the charge that he robbed the Manhattan bank on April 22.”); United States v. Gambino, 838 F. Supp. 744, 748 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).\nInadmissibility aside, the Indictment specifically charges conduct between 1994 and 1997. That a different investigative team focused on Epstein's conduct in the early 2000s may not have uncovered evidence about the defendant's conduct in the 1990s has no bearing on the charges in this case, which was brought entirely independent of the prior SDFL investigation. Moreover, and as detailed further below, two of the victims referenced in the Indictment, Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-3, were never interviewed by the USAO-SDFL, and had never spoken to law enforcement until they met with this Office in late August and September 2019, after Epstein's",
  11. "text_blocks": [
  12. {
  13. "type": "printed",
  14. "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 75 of 239",
  15. "position": "header"
  16. },
  17. {
  18. "type": "printed",
  19. "content": "crimes or events. See, e.g., United States v. Scarpa, 897 F.2d 63, 70 (2d Cir. 1990) (“A defendant may not seek to establish h[er] innocence . . . through proof of the absence of criminal acts on specific occasions.”); United States v. Chambers, 800 F. App'x 43, 46 (2d Cir. 2020) (“A single occurrence of lawful conduct is 'simply irrelevant' to other occurrences of lawful conduct.” (quoting United States v. Walker, 191 F.3d 326, 336 (2d Cir. 1999)); United States v. Williams, 205 F.3d 23, 34 (2d Cir. 2000) (“We reject Williams's assertion that the evidence of innocent travel was necessary to rebut the government's allegation that Williams had been involved in other cocaine importations from Jamaica. Although the government did argue that Williams had been involved in other importations, it did not allege that Williams had engaged in drug activity during these particular trips.”); United States v. Fiumano, No. 14 Cr. 518 (JFK), 2016 WL 1629356, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016) (“The principle is rather elementary. A defendant charged with robbing a bank in Manhattan on April 22 cannot offer as evidence to disprove the charged crime that he did not rob the bank's branches in Brooklyn or the Bronx on April 22 or that he did not rob the Manhattan branch on April 20, 21, 23, and 24, because this evidence is irrelevant to the charge that he robbed the Manhattan bank on April 22.”); United States v. Gambino, 838 F. Supp. 744, 748 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).",
  20. "position": "main body"
  21. },
  22. {
  23. "type": "printed",
  24. "content": "Inadmissibility aside, the Indictment specifically charges conduct between 1994 and 1997. That a different investigative team focused on Epstein's conduct in the early 2000s may not have uncovered evidence about the defendant's conduct in the 1990s has no bearing on the charges in this case, which was brought entirely independent of the prior SDFL investigation. Moreover, and as detailed further below, two of the victims referenced in the Indictment, Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-3, were never interviewed by the USAO-SDFL, and had never spoken to law enforcement until they met with this Office in late August and September 2019, after Epstein's",
  25. "position": "main body"
  26. },
  27. {
  28. "type": "printed",
  29. "content": "48",
  30. "position": "footer"
  31. },
  32. {
  33. "type": "printed",
  34. "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003009",
  35. "position": "footer"
  36. }
  37. ],
  38. "entities": {
  39. "people": [
  40. "Scarpa",
  41. "Chambers",
  42. "Walker",
  43. "Williams",
  44. "Fiumano",
  45. "Gambino",
  46. "Epstein"
  47. ],
  48. "organizations": [
  49. "USAO-SDFL"
  50. ],
  51. "locations": [
  52. "Jamaica",
  53. "Manhattan",
  54. "Brooklyn",
  55. "Bronx",
  56. "S.D.N.Y."
  57. ],
  58. "dates": [
  59. "1990",
  60. "2020",
  61. "1999",
  62. "2000",
  63. "1994",
  64. "1997",
  65. "2000s",
  66. "2016",
  67. "April 25, 2016",
  68. "April 22",
  69. "April 20",
  70. "April 21",
  71. "April 23",
  72. "April 24",
  73. "1993",
  74. "late August 2019",
  75. "September 2019"
  76. ],
  77. "reference_numbers": [
  78. "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
  79. "Document 204",
  80. "14 Cr. 518 (JFK)"
  81. ]
  82. },
  83. "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Jeffrey Epstein. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The content discusses legal precedents and the specifics of the indictment against the defendant."
  84. }