mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010286.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20 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 20 of 24\nrepeatedly, and the Court agreed, that evidence of travel to locations other than New York, and sexual abuse that occurred in those locations, was relevant to the Mann Act conspiracies. As a result, the jury heard a great deal of testimony from Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer, as well as other evidence, about conduct that took place in Epstein's residences in New Mexico, London, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and, of course, Florida. Indeed, a large portion of Jane's testimony, which was relevant to the Mann Act conspiracies, described incidents of sexual abuse in Epstein's residence in Palm Beach that involved no interstate travel. (Tr. 298-315).\nAccordingly, the geographic scope of Count Five (Florida) was included within the geographic scope of Count Three.\nCount Five did not describe a separate, independent conspiracy. Rather, it was a smaller subset of the broader overarching conspiracy charged in Count Three. Counts Three and Five are therefore multiplicitous. See United States v. Calderone, 982 F.2d 42, 47-48 (2d Cir. 1992) (finding two conspiracies were multiplicitous where, among other things, the time frame and geographic scope of one conspiracy was entirely contained within the other conspiracy and the core participants were the same); see also id. at 48 (\"The Government cannot be permitted to retry defendants on smaller and smaller conspiracies, wholly contained within the scope of a large conspiracy, until it finds one small enough to be proved to the satisfaction of a jury.\").\nC. Common Overt Acts\nThe government argues that the lack of common overt acts between Count Three and Count Five indicates that they were different conspiracies. (Opp. at 30). As we explained in our initial Motion, because Count Five was based on Carolyn's allegations and did not involve Jane, Kate, or Annie Farmer, that count alleged overt acts specific to Carolyn that were not alleged in Count Three. (Mot. at 24; Ind. ¶¶ 25a-d, 19a-c). Nevertheless, because the conspiracy charged in Count Five was a subset of the conspiracy charged in Count Three, as discussed above, the 16 DOJ-OGR-00010286",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page 20 of 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "repeatedly, and the Court agreed, that evidence of travel to locations other than New York, and sexual abuse that occurred in those locations, was relevant to the Mann Act conspiracies. As a result, the jury heard a great deal of testimony from Jane, Kate, and Annie Farmer, as well as other evidence, about conduct that took place in Epstein's residences in New Mexico, London, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and, of course, Florida. Indeed, a large portion of Jane's testimony, which was relevant to the Mann Act conspiracies, described incidents of sexual abuse in Epstein's residence in Palm Beach that involved no interstate travel. (Tr. 298-315).\nAccordingly, the geographic scope of Count Five (Florida) was included within the geographic scope of Count Three.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Count Five did not describe a separate, independent conspiracy. Rather, it was a smaller subset of the broader overarching conspiracy charged in Count Three. Counts Three and Five are therefore multiplicitous. See United States v. Calderone, 982 F.2d 42, 47-48 (2d Cir. 1992) (finding two conspiracies were multiplicitous where, among other things, the time frame and geographic scope of one conspiracy was entirely contained within the other conspiracy and the core participants were the same); see also id. at 48 (\"The Government cannot be permitted to retry defendants on smaller and smaller conspiracies, wholly contained within the scope of a large conspiracy, until it finds one small enough to be proved to the satisfaction of a jury.\").",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. Common Overt Acts\nThe government argues that the lack of common overt acts between Count Three and Count Five indicates that they were different conspiracies. (Opp. at 30). As we explained in our initial Motion, because Count Five was based on Carolyn's allegations and did not involve Jane, Kate, or Annie Farmer, that count alleged overt acts specific to Carolyn that were not alleged in Count Three. (Mot. at 24; Ind. ¶¶ 25a-d, 19a-c). Nevertheless, because the conspiracy charged in Count Five was a subset of the conspiracy charged in Count Three, as discussed above, the",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "16",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010286",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Kate",
      "Annie Farmer",
      "Carolyn"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "New Mexico",
      "London",
      "U.S. Virgin Islands",
      "Florida",
      "Palm Beach"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "03/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "647",
      "982 F.2d 42",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010286"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text discusses the geographic scope of various counts and the concept of multiplicitous conspiracies. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}