mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005760.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "394",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 394 Filed 10/29/21 Page 4 of 9\n\nGhislaine Maxwell moves to exclude any testimony or reference to an alleged \"rape\" by Jeffrey Epstein.\n\nFACTUAL BACKGROUND\n\nAccuser-1's allegations against Mr. Epstein have been inconsistent. Sometimes she has claimed that Mr. Epstein raped her. At other times, however, Accuser-1 has not made any allegation about being raped.\n\nAll the same, Accuser-1 has never accused Ms. Maxwell of knowing that Mr. Epstein allegedly raped her or of facilitating or participating in an alleged rape. And the indictment in this case does not charge any such conduct by Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. Rather, the indictment charges enticement and transportation of minors across state lines to provide \"sexualized massages\" to Mr. Epstein and conspiracy to do the same.\n\nIt is not clear whether any other witness will allege having been raped by Mr. Epstein. But what is clear is that the indictment does not allege that any rape occurred. Nor does it allege that Ms. Maxwell knew of, facilitated, or participated in an alleged rape.\n\nARGUMENT\n\nThe United States Constitution guarantees due process of law and fair trials by impartial juries. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. Essential to that guarantee is a promise that the jury will not be misled by irrelevant and prejudicial evidence that will district jurors from their one and only duty—to decide whether the government has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Doyle, 130 F.3d 523, 538-39 (2d Cir. 1997). A jury that has been misled by irrelevant and prejudicial evidence cannot be considered impartial. See Fed. R. Evid. 403, Advisory Committee Notes, 1972 Proposed Rules (evidence must be excluded when it risks inducing a decision based on a purely emotional basis).\n1\nDOJ-OGR-00005760",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 394 Filed 10/29/21 Page 4 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ghislaine Maxwell moves to exclude any testimony or reference to an alleged \"rape\" by Jeffrey Epstein.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "FACTUAL BACKGROUND",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Accuser-1's allegations against Mr. Epstein have been inconsistent. Sometimes she has claimed that Mr. Epstein raped her. At other times, however, Accuser-1 has not made any allegation about being raped.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "All the same, Accuser-1 has never accused Ms. Maxwell of knowing that Mr. Epstein allegedly raped her or of facilitating or participating in an alleged rape. And the indictment in this case does not charge any such conduct by Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. Rather, the indictment charges enticement and transportation of minors across state lines to provide \"sexualized massages\" to Mr. Epstein and conspiracy to do the same.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It is not clear whether any other witness will allege having been raped by Mr. Epstein. But what is clear is that the indictment does not allege that any rape occurred. Nor does it allege that Ms. Maxwell knew of, facilitated, or participated in an alleged rape.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ARGUMENT",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The United States Constitution guarantees due process of law and fair trials by impartial juries. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. Essential to that guarantee is a promise that the jury will not be misled by irrelevant and prejudicial evidence that will district jurors from their one and only duty—to decide whether the government has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Doyle, 130 F.3d 523, 538-39 (2d Cir. 1997). A jury that has been misled by irrelevant and prejudicial evidence cannot be considered impartial. See Fed. R. Evid. 403, Advisory Committee Notes, 1972 Proposed Rules (evidence must be excluded when it risks inducing a decision based on a purely emotional basis).",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005760",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Accuser-1",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Mr. Epstein",
      "Doyle"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "1997"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 394",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005760"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The content discusses the allegations against Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, and the legal arguments surrounding the case."
}