mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003701.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "27",
    "document_number": "207",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 27 of 34\nclearly that the allegations are irrelevant to the crimes charged. United States v. Napolitano, 552 F. Supp. 465, 480 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). The indictment does not allege that the alleged victim traveled in interstate commerce or was underage during sexual encounters with Epstein. But the Court cannot rule out that the allegations may reflect conduct undertaken in furtherance of the charged conspiracy or be relevant to prove facts such as Maxwell's state of mind. See United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369, 392 (2d Cir. 1992). The Court will follow the well-worn path of others in this District and reserve the issue for trial. Maxwell may renew her motion then.\nVII. Maxwell's motion to dismiss multiplicitous charges is premature\nMaxwell's motion to dismiss either the first or third count of the S1 superseding indictment as multiplicitous is also premature. Maxwell contends that the Government has alleged the same conspiracy twice in the indictment. \"An indictment is multiplicitous when it charges a single offense as an offense multiple times, in separate counts, when, in law and fact, only one crime has been committed.\" United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 1999). \"The multiplicity doctrine is based upon the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, which assures that the court does not exceed its legislative authorization by imposing multiple punishments for the same offense.\" United States v. Nakashian, 820 F.2d 549, 552 (2d Cir. 1987) (cleaned up).\n\"Where there has been no prior conviction or acquittal, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect against simultaneous prosecutions for the same offense, so long as no more than one punishment is eventually imposed.\" United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006). \"Since Josephberg, courts in this Circuit have routinely denied pre-trial motions to dismiss potentially multiplicitous counts as premature.\" United States v. Medina, No. 13-cr-272\n27\nDOJ-OGR-00003701",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 27 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "clearly that the allegations are irrelevant to the crimes charged. United States v. Napolitano, 552 F. Supp. 465, 480 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). The indictment does not allege that the alleged victim traveled in interstate commerce or was underage during sexual encounters with Epstein. But the Court cannot rule out that the allegations may reflect conduct undertaken in furtherance of the charged conspiracy or be relevant to prove facts such as Maxwell's state of mind. See United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369, 392 (2d Cir. 1992). The Court will follow the well-worn path of others in this District and reserve the issue for trial. Maxwell may renew her motion then.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "VII. Maxwell's motion to dismiss multiplicitous charges is premature",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell's motion to dismiss either the first or third count of the S1 superseding indictment as multiplicitous is also premature. Maxwell contends that the Government has alleged the same conspiracy twice in the indictment. \"An indictment is multiplicitous when it charges a single offense as an offense multiple times, in separate counts, when, in law and fact, only one crime has been committed.\" United States v. Chacko, 169 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 1999). \"The multiplicity doctrine is based upon the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, which assures that the court does not exceed its legislative authorization by imposing multiple punishments for the same offense.\" United States v. Nakashian, 820 F.2d 549, 552 (2d Cir. 1987) (cleaned up).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"Where there has been no prior conviction or acquittal, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect against simultaneous prosecutions for the same offense, so long as no more than one punishment is eventually imposed.\" United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006). \"Since Josephberg, courts in this Circuit have routinely denied pre-trial motions to dismiss potentially multiplicitous counts as premature.\" United States v. Medina, No. 13-cr-272",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "27",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003701",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Napolitano",
      "Concepcion",
      "Chacko",
      "Nakashian",
      "Josephberg",
      "Medina"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Government",
      "District"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "2d Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1982",
      "1992",
      "1999",
      "1987",
      "2006"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 207",
      "S1",
      "552 F. Supp. 465",
      "983 F.2d 369",
      "169 F.3d 140",
      "820 F.2d 549",
      "459 F.3d 350",
      "13-cr-272"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case United States v. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 27 of 34."
}