mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00020992.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "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, Page166 of 221\nA-366\nCase 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 9 of 45\n*11 (concluding that conspiracies to defraud the United States and to commit mail and wire fraud were the same conspiracy as earlier conspiracy to use or transfer false IDs). After all, \"[a] single agreement to commit several crimes constitutes one conspiracy.\" United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 570–71 (1989). The Government implicitly conceded this point of law when it agreed that Counts One and Three were multiplicitous. Count One charges a conspiracy to entice minors to travel across state lines in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 while Count Three charges a conspiracy to transport minors across state lines in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). Despite distinct statutory predicates for these two § 371 conspiracies, the Government did not contest that they were the same offense. Though Count Five is unquestionably less similar to Count Three than is Count One, the difference in statutory predicates does not end the matter. It is well established that a single conspiracy can contain multiple objectives, particularly if the objectives share important similarities, as they do here. United States v. Salamone, 152 F.3d 88, 148 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing United States v. Aracri, 968 F.2d 1512, 1518 (2d Cir. 1992)).\nOverlap of participants. The participants in the two conspiracies in Counts Three and Five substantially overlap with one another. Of course, the defendant will always overlap between two allegedly multiplicitous conspiracies, so their participation in both conspiracies has negligible significance. Villa, 2014 WL 252013, at *5. More importantly here, Epstein was the Defendant's primary coconspirator in both conspiracies, and the Government argued that in both conspiracies the Defendant played the same role of acquiring underage girls for Epstein to sexually abuse. They were, the Government explained, \"partners in crime\" over the decade alleged in the Indictment. E.g., Trial Tr. at 34, 2842, 2885; see also id. at 41 (\"For a decade, the defendant played an essential role in this scheme.\")\n9\nDOJ-OGR-00020992",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page166 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-366",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 657 Filed 04/29/22 Page 9 of 45",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "*11 (concluding that conspiracies to defraud the United States and to commit mail and wire fraud were the same conspiracy as earlier conspiracy to use or transfer false IDs). After all, \"[a] single agreement to commit several crimes constitutes one conspiracy.\" United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 570–71 (1989). The Government implicitly conceded this point of law when it agreed that Counts One and Three were multiplicitous. Count One charges a conspiracy to entice minors to travel across state lines in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 while Count Three charges a conspiracy to transport minors across state lines in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). Despite distinct statutory predicates for these two § 371 conspiracies, the Government did not contest that they were the same offense. Though Count Five is unquestionably less similar to Count Three than is Count One, the difference in statutory predicates does not end the matter. It is well established that a single conspiracy can contain multiple objectives, particularly if the objectives share important similarities, as they do here. United States v. Salamone, 152 F.3d 88, 148 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing United States v. Aracri, 968 F.2d 1512, 1518 (2d Cir. 1992)).",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Overlap of participants. The participants in the two conspiracies in Counts Three and Five substantially overlap with one another. Of course, the defendant will always overlap between two allegedly multiplicitous conspiracies, so their participation in both conspiracies has negligible significance. Villa, 2014 WL 252013, at *5. More importantly here, Epstein was the Defendant's primary coconspirator in both conspiracies, and the Government argued that in both conspiracies the Defendant played the same role of acquiring underage girls for Epstein to sexually abuse. They were, the Government explained, \"partners in crime\" over the decade alleged in the Indictment. E.g., Trial Tr. at 34, 2842, 2885; see also id. at 41 (\"For a decade, the defendant played an essential role in this scheme.\")",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020992",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023",
      "04/29/22",
      "1989",
      "1992",
      "1998",
      "2014"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 657",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2422",
      "18 U.S.C. § 2423(a)",
      "488 U.S. 563",
      "152 F.3d 88",
      "968 F.2d 1512",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020992"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text discusses the concept of conspiracy and the overlap of participants in different counts. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}