mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005831.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "48",
    "document_number": "397",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 48 of 84\n\nMaxwell's state of mind.\" (Op. & Order at 26-27, Dkt. No. 207 (\"Courts in this district generally delay ruling on any motion to strike until after the presentation of the Government's evidence at trial, because that evidence may affect how specific allegations relate to the overall charges.\"))\nHaving concluded that it should delay striking these overt acts until after presentation of the Government's evidence, the Court should not now effectively reverse its decision by precluding that very evidence. If the Government's proof at trial does not establish the relevance of Minor Victim-3's testimony, if anything, the proper course is for the defense to move to strike the relevant overt acts and Minor Victim-3's testimony at that time.\nEven if evidence of Minor Victim-3 were uncharged criminal activity, it would still be necessary to understand the other aspects of the charged conspiracies. Minor Victim-3 experienced the pattern of abuse in close temporal proximity to the other Minor Victims: the conduct involving Minor Victim-1 spans 1994 to 1997, the conduct involving Minor Victim-3 spans 1994 to 1995, and the conduct involving Minor Victim-2 occurred in 1996. The defendant's acts toward Minor Victim-3 show (1) the defendant's relationship with Epstein, including her willingness to procure teenagers to give Epstein massages, (2) the defendant's knowledge of both the sexual nature of those massages and the need to procure additional victims, and (3) her willingness to transport minors to further their abuse. This evidence is therefore direct proof of the defendant's state of mind and agreement to participate in a conspiracy with Epstein. Moreover, her relationship with Minor Victim-3 was \"part of [her] continued effort\" to commit the offenses charged in Counts One and Three. Carboni, 204 F.3d at 44; see United States v. Romero-Padilla, 583 F.3d 126, 130 (2d Cir. 2009) (\"We reject Romero-Padilla's contention that evidence of his\n47\nDOJ-OGR-00005831",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 48 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell's state of mind.\" (Op. & Order at 26-27, Dkt. No. 207 (\"Courts in this district generally delay ruling on any motion to strike until after the presentation of the Government's evidence at trial, because that evidence may affect how specific allegations relate to the overall charges.\"))\nHaving concluded that it should delay striking these overt acts until after presentation of the Government's evidence, the Court should not now effectively reverse its decision by precluding that very evidence. If the Government's proof at trial does not establish the relevance of Minor Victim-3's testimony, if anything, the proper course is for the defense to move to strike the relevant overt acts and Minor Victim-3's testimony at that time.\nEven if evidence of Minor Victim-3 were uncharged criminal activity, it would still be necessary to understand the other aspects of the charged conspiracies. Minor Victim-3 experienced the pattern of abuse in close temporal proximity to the other Minor Victims: the conduct involving Minor Victim-1 spans 1994 to 1997, the conduct involving Minor Victim-3 spans 1994 to 1995, and the conduct involving Minor Victim-2 occurred in 1996. The defendant's acts toward Minor Victim-3 show (1) the defendant's relationship with Epstein, including her willingness to procure teenagers to give Epstein massages, (2) the defendant's knowledge of both the sexual nature of those massages and the need to procure additional victims, and (3) her willingness to transport minors to further their abuse. This evidence is therefore direct proof of the defendant's state of mind and agreement to participate in a conspiracy with Epstein. Moreover, her relationship with Minor Victim-3 was \"part of [her] continued effort\" to commit the offenses charged in Counts One and Three. Carboni, 204 F.3d at 44; see United States v. Romero-Padilla, 583 F.3d 126, 130 (2d Cir. 2009) (\"We reject Romero-Padilla's contention that evidence of his",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "47",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005831",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Minor Victim-1",
      "Minor Victim-2",
      "Minor Victim-3",
      "Romero-Padilla"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "1994",
      "1995",
      "1996",
      "1997"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 397",
      "Dkt. No. 207",
      "Counts One and Three",
      "204 F.3d",
      "583 F.3d 126"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text discusses the relevance of certain evidence and testimony in the trial."
}