mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008935.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "600",
    "date": "02/11/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 600 Filed 02/11/22 Page 11 of 37\n\nMR. ROHRBACH: Annie only relates to the conspiracy counts, at least as to these Mann Act charges, and the jury is going to be instructed here that the relevant illegal sexual activity has to be the violation of the New York offense. So again, there's no risk that the jury will think that the sexual contact that happened in New Mexico is something that on its own is sufficient to show the illegal sexual activity required by the statute.\n\nTr. 2775:2-9. With regard to Jane's testimony, the government reiterated the same point:\n\nMR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, these instructions do not put before the jury any violation of any New Mexico offense whatsoever above or below the age of consent, so I think there's no risk that the jury is going to convict the defendant based on their concerns about a violation of a New York offense.\n\nTr. 2776:5-10. The Court agreed with the government and declined to include the requested instructions. Tr. 2777:12-25.\n\n2. The Jury Note\n\nDuring their deliberations, the jury sent a note inquiring about the proper basis to convict under Count Four of the Indictment (the substantive transportation count) (the \"Jury Note\" or the \"Note\"). The Jury Note read as follows:\n\nUnder Count Four (4), if the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane's return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity, can she be found guilty under the second element?\n\nCourt Exhibit #15 (Dkt. 593 at 23). The defense argued that the Note indicated that the jury was already contemplating convicting Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on Jane's testimony about sexual abuse in New Mexico, which was not a violation of New York law, and that their question focused on whether Ms. Maxwell's help planning Jane's return flight from New Mexico, assuming they found she gave any, was sufficient to satisfy the second element of Count Four.\n\nTr. 3128:6-3140:18. The Court disagreed and did not offer any clarifying instructions, and simply referred the jury to the charge for the second element of Count Four. Tr. 3140:20-3141:3.\n\n6\nDOJ-OGR-00008935",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 600 Filed 02/11/22 Page 11 of 37",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "MR. ROHRBACH: Annie only relates to the conspiracy counts, at least as to these Mann Act charges, and the jury is going to be instructed here that the relevant illegal sexual activity has to be the violation of the New York offense. So again, there's no risk that the jury will think that the sexual contact that happened in New Mexico is something that on its own is sufficient to show the illegal sexual activity required by the statute.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Tr. 2775:2-9. With regard to Jane's testimony, the government reiterated the same point:",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, these instructions do not put before the jury any violation of any New Mexico offense whatsoever above or below the age of consent, so I think there's no risk that the jury is going to convict the defendant based on their concerns about a violation of a New York offense.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Tr. 2776:5-10. The Court agreed with the government and declined to include the requested instructions. Tr. 2777:12-25.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. The Jury Note",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "During their deliberations, the jury sent a note inquiring about the proper basis to convict under Count Four of the Indictment (the substantive transportation count) (the \"Jury Note\" or the \"Note\"). The Jury Note read as follows:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Under Count Four (4), if the defendant aided in the transportation of Jane's return flight, but not the flight to New Mexico where/if the intent was for Jane to engage in sexual activity, can she be found guilty under the second element?",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Court Exhibit #15 (Dkt. 593 at 23). The defense argued that the Note indicated that the jury was already contemplating convicting Ms. Maxwell on Count Four based on Jane's testimony about sexual abuse in New Mexico, which was not a violation of New York law, and that their question focused on whether Ms. Maxwell's help planning Jane's return flight from New Mexico, assuming they found she gave any, was sufficient to satisfy the second element of Count Four.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Tr. 3128:6-3140:18. The Court disagreed and did not offer any clarifying instructions, and simply referred the jury to the charge for the second element of Count Four. Tr. 3140:20-3141:3.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008935",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. ROHRBACH",
      "Jane",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "New Mexico",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 600",
      "Tr. 2775:2-9",
      "Tr. 2776:5-10",
      "Tr. 2777:12-25",
      "Count Four",
      "Dkt. 593",
      "Tr. 3128:6-3140:18",
      "Tr. 3140:20-3141:3",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008935"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}