mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009596.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "34 of 51",
    "document_number": "621",
    "date": "02/25/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 34 of 51\n\nIt makes no difference, as the defendant argues, that both crimes involved grooming minors for sexual abuse. (Def. Mot. at 23-24). As Dr. Rocchio testified at trial, the use of grooming techniques is common among perpetrators of child sexual abuse. (See Tr. 713). But using a common tool among sexual offenders does not render the distinct conspiracies here multiplicitous; if that were true, presumably many federal crimes against children would be multiplicitous.\n\nThe Government was clear at trial that, while the defendant and Epstein committed crimes together for years, they did so through different schemes, in violation of different laws. That is what the S2 Indictment charged, and that is what the Government proved at trial: different conspiracy crimes. The Court should deny the motion and enter judgment on Counts Three and Five.\n\nIII. The Defendant's Motion to Vacate Her Conviction and Dismiss the Indictment Based on Alleged Improper Pre-Trial Delay Should Be Denied\n\nThe defendant contends that the Court should vacate her conviction and dismiss the Indictment because the Government's allegedly excessive delay in bringing the charges violates her due process rights. (Def. Mot. at 25). The defendant's contention should be swiftly rejected. The Court has twice evaluated the defendant's speculative and baseless arguments and twice concluded that the defendant could not meet the \"stringent standard\" necessary to prevail on a claim that any alleged pre-indictment delay violates her due process rights. (Dkt. No. 207 at 17; Dkt. No. 317 at 10). Her arguments fare no better post-trial.\n\nThe defendant has not and cannot successfully establish a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. First, the defendant has not established that any alleged pre-indictment delay caused actual prejudice to the defense. Her speculative assertions about lost 33\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009596",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 34 of 51",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It makes no difference, as the defendant argues, that both crimes involved grooming minors for sexual abuse. (Def. Mot. at 23-24). As Dr. Rocchio testified at trial, the use of grooming techniques is common among perpetrators of child sexual abuse. (See Tr. 713). But using a common tool among sexual offenders does not render the distinct conspiracies here multiplicitous; if that were true, presumably many federal crimes against children would be multiplicitous.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government was clear at trial that, while the defendant and Epstein committed crimes together for years, they did so through different schemes, in violation of different laws. That is what the S2 Indictment charged, and that is what the Government proved at trial: different conspiracy crimes. The Court should deny the motion and enter judgment on Counts Three and Five.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. The Defendant's Motion to Vacate Her Conviction and Dismiss the Indictment Based on Alleged Improper Pre-Trial Delay Should Be Denied",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant contends that the Court should vacate her conviction and dismiss the Indictment because the Government's allegedly excessive delay in bringing the charges violates her due process rights. (Def. Mot. at 25). The defendant's contention should be swiftly rejected. The Court has twice evaluated the defendant's speculative and baseless arguments and twice concluded that the defendant could not meet the \"stringent standard\" necessary to prevail on a claim that any alleged pre-indictment delay violates her due process rights. (Dkt. No. 207 at 17; Dkt. No. 317 at 10). Her arguments fare no better post-trial.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant has not and cannot successfully establish a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. First, the defendant has not established that any alleged pre-indictment delay caused actual prejudice to the defense. Her speculative assertions about lost 33",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009596",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Rocchio",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/25/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 621",
      "Dkt. No. 207",
      "Dkt. No. 317",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009596"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 34 of 51."
}