mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003130.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "196",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 196 of 239\n403.\"); United States v. McDarrah, 351 F. App'x 558, 563 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming admission pursuant to Rule 404(b) of defendant's \"e-mail responses to the Craigslist advertisements\" for erotic services because the e-mails \"were relevant to his knowledge and intent, because he wrote those emails to girls he knew could be minors (he enthusiastically indicated that girls younger than 18 are acceptable) and his e-mails showed his interest in actual sexual conduct\"); United States v. Brand, No. 04 Cr. 194 (PKL), 2005 WL 77055, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2005) (admitting \"evidence that Brand exhibited an interest in child erotica and child pornography on the internet in the period leading up to the charged conduct\" under Rule 404(b) because evidence was \"pertinent to whether he used the internet in an attempt to engage in sexual conduct with\" victim). Accordingly, Rule 403 does not bar the admission of evidence regarding Minor Victim-3, especially given its probative value in demonstrating the defendant's knowledge, intent, and modus operandi.\nIn sum, because evidence regarding Minor Victim-3's experience is admissible both as direct evidence of the conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three and pursuant to Rule 404(b), there is no basis to strike the allegations regarding Minor Victim-3 from the Indictment.\nIX. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count One or Count Three as Multiplicitous Is Premature\nThe defendant moves to dismiss Counts One or Three on the ground that they are multiplicitous. (Def. Mot. 8). Because the Second Circuit has made clear that a multiplicity challenge does not become timely until after trial, this motion should be denied as premature.\nA. Relevant Facts\nCount One charges the defendant with participating in a conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, to transport minors with the intent to commit an illegal sex act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. See Indictment ¶¶ 9-11. Count Three charges the defendant with participating in",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 196 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "403.\"); United States v. McDarrah, 351 F. App'x 558, 563 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming admission pursuant to Rule 404(b) of defendant's \"e-mail responses to the Craigslist advertisements\" for erotic services because the e-mails \"were relevant to his knowledge and intent, because he wrote those emails to girls he knew could be minors (he enthusiastically indicated that girls younger than 18 are acceptable) and his e-mails showed his interest in actual sexual conduct\"); United States v. Brand, No. 04 Cr. 194 (PKL), 2005 WL 77055, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2005) (admitting \"evidence that Brand exhibited an interest in child erotica and child pornography on the internet in the period leading up to the charged conduct\" under Rule 404(b) because evidence was \"pertinent to whether he used the internet in an attempt to engage in sexual conduct with\" victim). Accordingly, Rule 403 does not bar the admission of evidence regarding Minor Victim-3, especially given its probative value in demonstrating the defendant's knowledge, intent, and modus operandi.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In sum, because evidence regarding Minor Victim-3's experience is admissible both as direct evidence of the conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three and pursuant to Rule 404(b), there is no basis to strike the allegations regarding Minor Victim-3 from the Indictment.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "IX. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count One or Count Three as Multiplicitous Is Premature",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant moves to dismiss Counts One or Three on the ground that they are multiplicitous. (Def. Mot. 8). Because the Second Circuit has made clear that a multiplicity challenge does not become timely until after trial, this motion should be denied as premature.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Relevant Facts",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Count One charges the defendant with participating in a conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, to transport minors with the intent to commit an illegal sex act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422. See Indictment ¶¶ 9-11. Count Three charges the defendant with participating in",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "169",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003130",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "McDarrah",
      "Brand",
      "Minor Victim-3"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "Craigslist"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "Jan. 12, 2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "18 U.S.C. § 371",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2422",
      "04 Cr. 194 (PKL)"
    ]
  },
  "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."
}