mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010268.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2 of 24",
    "document_number": "647",
    "date": "03/11/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page 2 of 24\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nPage\nI. The Court's Response to the Jury Note (Court Exhibit #15) Was Erroneous and Resulted in a Constructive Amendment/Variance........................ 1\nA. The Jury Note Indicated that the Jury Misunderstood the Intent Requirement for Count Four............................................... 3\nB. The Court Erred When It Declined to Give the Jury a Supplemental Instruction Clarifying the Intent Requirement for Count Four................ 7\nII. All Three Conspiracy Counts Are Multiplicitous Because They Are Based on a Single Underlying Criminal Scheme............................... 10\nA. The Criminal Offenses Charged ............................................... 12\nB. Overlap in Participants, Time, and Geographic Scope .................... 14\nC. Common Overt Acts ............................................................ 16\nD. Similarity of Operation, Common Objectives, and Degree of Interdependence ............................................................... 17\nIII. The Court Should Grant Ms. Maxwell's Other Motions........................ 18\nCONCLUSION........................................................................... 18\ni\nDOJ-OGR-00010268",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page 2 of 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "TABLE OF CONTENTS",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. The Court's Response to the Jury Note (Court Exhibit #15) Was Erroneous and Resulted in a Constructive Amendment/Variance........................ 1\nA. The Jury Note Indicated that the Jury Misunderstood the Intent Requirement for Count Four............................................... 3\nB. The Court Erred When It Declined to Give the Jury a Supplemental Instruction Clarifying the Intent Requirement for Count Four................ 7\nII. All Three Conspiracy Counts Are Multiplicitous Because They Are Based on a Single Underlying Criminal Scheme............................... 10\nA. The Criminal Offenses Charged ............................................... 12\nB. Overlap in Participants, Time, and Geographic Scope .................... 14\nC. Common Overt Acts ............................................................ 16\nD. Similarity of Operation, Common Objectives, and Degree of Interdependence ............................................................... 17\nIII. The Court Should Grant Ms. Maxwell's Other Motions........................ 18\nCONCLUSION........................................................................... 18",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "i",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010268",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "03/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "647",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010268"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The table of contents suggests that the document argues that the court's response to a jury note was erroneous and that conspiracy counts are multiplicitous."
}