mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008954.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "30 of 37",
    "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 30 of 37\n\ntrafficking conspiracy was to “recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, or obtain” a minor to engage in a commercial sex act. If the “grooming” had failed to entice Carolyn and others to give sexualized massages to Epstein in exchange for cash, there would be no sex trafficking count.\n\nFor these reasons, Counts One, Three, and Five describe a single conspiracy, not multiple conspiracies, and are therefore multiplicitous. Accordingly, the Court should enter judgment on only one of these counts.\n\nIII. The Court Should Vacate Ms. Maxwell’s Conviction and Dismiss the S2 Indictment Due to Pre-Indictment Delay.\n\nThe Court should vacate Ms. Maxwell’s convictions as to all counts and dismiss the Indictment due to the government’s excessive and prejudicial delay in bringing this prosecution against Ms. Maxwell in violation of her due process rights. Ms. Maxwell previously made this claim in her initial and supplemental pretrial motions. (Dkt. 138, 293). The Court denied the motion each time on the grounds that Ms. Maxwell failed to show “actual and substantial prejudice” caused by the delay. (Dkt. 207 at 16-18; Dkt. 317 at 10). The Court, however, granted Ms. Maxwell leave to renew the motion after the conclusion of trial. (Dkt. 207 at 18; Dkt. 317 at 10). Ms. Maxwell now reasserts the same motion and incorporates the arguments previously made to the Court.\n\nIn addition, the record at trial highlighted numerous other examples of how the delay in charging this case substantially prejudiced Ms. Maxwell’s defense. For example, critical documentary records and witnesses that would have allowed Ms. Maxwell to effectively challenge the government’s proof were no longer available, including the following:\n\n25\n\nDOJ-OGR-00008954",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 600 Filed 02/11/22 Page 30 of 37",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "trafficking conspiracy was to “recruit, entice, harbor, transport, provide, or obtain” a minor to engage in a commercial sex act. If the “grooming” had failed to entice Carolyn and others to give sexualized massages to Epstein in exchange for cash, there would be no sex trafficking count.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For these reasons, Counts One, Three, and Five describe a single conspiracy, not multiple conspiracies, and are therefore multiplicitous. Accordingly, the Court should enter judgment on only one of these counts.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. The Court Should Vacate Ms. Maxwell’s Conviction and Dismiss the S2 Indictment Due to Pre-Indictment Delay.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court should vacate Ms. Maxwell’s convictions as to all counts and dismiss the Indictment due to the government’s excessive and prejudicial delay in bringing this prosecution against Ms. Maxwell in violation of her due process rights. Ms. Maxwell previously made this claim in her initial and supplemental pretrial motions. (Dkt. 138, 293). The Court denied the motion each time on the grounds that Ms. Maxwell failed to show “actual and substantial prejudice” caused by the delay. (Dkt. 207 at 16-18; Dkt. 317 at 10). The Court, however, granted Ms. Maxwell leave to renew the motion after the conclusion of trial. (Dkt. 207 at 18; Dkt. 317 at 10). Ms. Maxwell now reasserts the same motion and incorporates the arguments previously made to the Court.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In addition, the record at trial highlighted numerous other examples of how the delay in charging this case substantially prejudiced Ms. Maxwell’s defense. For example, critical documentary records and witnesses that would have allowed Ms. Maxwell to effectively challenge the government’s proof were no longer available, including the following:",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "25",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008954",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Carolyn",
      "Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 600",
      "Dkt. 138",
      "Dkt. 293",
      "Dkt. 207",
      "Dkt. 317",
      "S2 Indictment",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008954"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, with discussions on the indictment and pre-indictment delay. The text is printed, and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}