mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020987.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "657",
    "date": "04/29/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page161 of 221\nA-361\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 4 of 45\neighteen, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2. S2 Indictment, Dkt. No. 187.1\nIn two prior pretrial motions, the Defendant requested that the Court dismiss two of the three conspiracy counts—that is, Counts One, Three, and Five—as multiplicitous, given that all three were premised on the Defendant's participation in a single criminal conspiracy with Epstein. To punish her for all three counts, she argued, would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. In opinions dated April 16, 2021, and August 13, 2021, the Court denied those motions as premature because the Double Jeopardy Clause would prohibit only multiple punishments for the same offense, but not indictments for the same offense. United States v. Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d 299, 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (citing United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006)); United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-CR-330 (AJN), 2021 WL 3591801, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2021).\nBecause the jury convicted the Defendant on all three conspiracy counts, the Defendant now requests that the Court impose judgment on only one of these counts. Maxwell Br. at 19, Dkt. No. 600. The Government concedes that Counts One and Three are multiplicitous and agrees that the Court should not impose judgment on Count One, but it argues that Counts Three and Five are distinct offenses premised on distinct criminal conspiracies, and so the Court should impose judgment on both. Gov. Br. at 24, Dkt. No. 621.\nOn consent of both parties, the Court will not impose judgment on Count One because it is multiplicitous. For the reasons that follow, the Court further grants the Defendant's motion to also not enter judgment on Count Count Five because it is also multiplicitous with Count Three.\n1 The original and S2 Indictments also included two counts of perjury. See S2 Indictment ¶¶ 28–31. The Court granted the Defendant's motion to sever those counts for a separate trial. United States v. Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d 299, 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2021).\n4\nDOJ-OGR-00020987",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page161 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-361",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 4 of 45",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "eighteen, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2. S2 Indictment, Dkt. No. 187.1",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In two prior pretrial motions, the Defendant requested that the Court dismiss two of the three conspiracy counts—that is, Counts One, Three, and Five—as multiplicitous, given that all three were premised on the Defendant's participation in a single criminal conspiracy with Epstein. To punish her for all three counts, she argued, would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. In opinions dated April 16, 2021, and August 13, 2021, the Court denied those motions as premature because the Double Jeopardy Clause would prohibit only multiple punishments for the same offense, but not indictments for the same offense. United States v. Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d 299, 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (citing United States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006)); United States v. Maxwell, No. 20-CR-330 (AJN), 2021 WL 3591801, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2021).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Because the jury convicted the Defendant on all three conspiracy counts, the Defendant now requests that the Court impose judgment on only one of these counts. Maxwell Br. at 19, Dkt. No. 600. The Government concedes that Counts One and Three are multiplicitous and agrees that the Court should not impose judgment on Count One, but it argues that Counts Three and Five are distinct offenses premised on distinct criminal conspiracies, and so the Court should impose judgment on both. Gov. Br. at 24, Dkt. No. 621.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "On consent of both parties, the Court will not impose judgment on Count One because it is multiplicitous. For the reasons that follow, the Court further grants the Defendant's motion to also not enter judgment on Count Count Five because it is also multiplicitous with Count Three.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 The original and S2 Indictments also included two counts of perjury. See S2 Indictment ¶¶ 28–31. The Court granted the Defendant's motion to sever those counts for a separate trial. United States v. Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d 299, 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2021).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020987",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Josephberg"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "2d Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 16, 2021",
      "August 13, 2021",
      "02/28/2023",
      "04/29/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "3475901",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 657",
      "Dkt. No. 187",
      "Dkt. No. 600",
      "Dkt. No. 621",
      "No. 20-CR-330 (AJN)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020987"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case United States v. Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}