mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010392.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "26",
    "document_number": "657",
    "date": "04/29/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 26 of 45\nwhen Jane was under the age of 17, Jane was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55.\" Id. at 49.\nThe Court also gave two limiting instructions to ensure that the jury's consideration of certain relevant evidence was properly focused on the core of criminality. These instructions pertained to testimony about sexual activity that was not criminal conduct under New York Penal Law Section 130.55. The first limiting instruction pertained to Kate. This instruction informed the jury that it could not convict the Defendant on Counts One and Three solely on the basis of Kate's testimony because Kate could not be considered a victim of the crimes charged. Trial Tr. at 1167-68. This was so because she was older than seventeen at the time of the events, and, as explained, the object of the charged conspiracies was transport with intent to engage in sexual conduct in violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55, which criminalizes sexual contact with individuals under the age of seventeen. See Nov. 1, 2021 Tr. at 67-68. The second limiting instruction pertained to Annie, who testified about sexual contact in New Mexico only. The instruction explained that her testimony about sexual conduct did not describe \"illegal sexual activity\" as alleged in the Indictment, which was a legal term that the Court would explain at the end of the case. Trial Tr. at 2048-49. This was so because, as explained, the object of the charged conspiracies was a violation of New York law, not New Mexico law. Both limiting instructions explained that the jury could determine that the testimony was relevant evidence. That was so because such evidence tended to establish the Defendant's intent that transport of a minor victim to New York was for the purpose of sexual activity illegal under New York law.\nThe Defendant concedes this point as to testimony about sexual activity in states other than New\n26\nDOJ-OGR-00010392",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 26 of 45",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "when Jane was under the age of 17, Jane was enticed to travel from Florida to New York for purposes of sexually abusing her at the New York Residence, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55.\" Id. at 49.\nThe Court also gave two limiting instructions to ensure that the jury's consideration of certain relevant evidence was properly focused on the core of criminality. These instructions pertained to testimony about sexual activity that was not criminal conduct under New York Penal Law Section 130.55. The first limiting instruction pertained to Kate. This instruction informed the jury that it could not convict the Defendant on Counts One and Three solely on the basis of Kate's testimony because Kate could not be considered a victim of the crimes charged. Trial Tr. at 1167-68. This was so because she was older than seventeen at the time of the events, and, as explained, the object of the charged conspiracies was transport with intent to engage in sexual conduct in violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55, which criminalizes sexual contact with individuals under the age of seventeen. See Nov. 1, 2021 Tr. at 67-68. The second limiting instruction pertained to Annie, who testified about sexual contact in New Mexico only. The instruction explained that her testimony about sexual conduct did not describe \"illegal sexual activity\" as alleged in the Indictment, which was a legal term that the Court would explain at the end of the case. Trial Tr. at 2048-49. This was so because, as explained, the object of the charged conspiracies was a violation of New York law, not New Mexico law. Both limiting instructions explained that the jury could determine that the testimony was relevant evidence. That was so because such evidence tended to establish the Defendant's intent that transport of a minor victim to New York was for the purpose of sexual activity illegal under New York law.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Defendant concedes this point as to testimony about sexual activity in states other than New",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "26",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010392",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Kate",
      "Annie",
      "Defendant"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Florida",
      "New York",
      "New Mexico"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/29/22",
      "Nov. 1, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "657",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010392"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 26 of 45."
}