mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021591.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "161",
    "document_number": "78",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page161 of 217\n\nM6SQmax1                        46\n1 Cir. 2021) (summary order). Similar conclusion, United States\n2 v. Smith, a Ninth Circuit case from 2013, 719 F.3d 1120. That\n3 case explains 2G1.3(a) base offense level and the undue\n4 influence enhancement \"serve unique purposes under the\n5 Guidelines.\"\n6 The defense argues that because the enhancement\n7 applies only if undue influence was exerted with the aim of a\n8 commercial sex act, it does not apply here. But the jury in\n9 Count Six did convict the defendant of sex trafficking Carolyn\n10 to participate in commercial sex acts. The Court finds that\n11 Virginia Roberts, who brought Carolyn and Melissa who was\n12 brought by Carolyn similarly were paid. The remaining victims,\n13 including Jane and Annie, also testified that they received\n14 money and gifts during their abuse which satisfies the\n15 enhancement.\n16 The defendant argues Carolyn was not unduly influenced\n17 to sexually massage Epstein. I find this argument meritless.\n18 The age gap between Carolyn and Epstein and the defendant far\n19 exceeded ten years, and the defendant does not rebut the\n20 resulting presumption of undue influence. 2G1.1, comment note\n21 7. Carolyn testified she was paid to give Epstein sexualized\n22 massages, and she needed the money for her drug addiction.\n23 Later, Carolyn returned to Epstein because she needed the money\n24 for herself and her newborn son. Plainly, taking advantage of\n25 a victim's financial need is a form of undue influence. I'll\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C... (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00021591",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page161 of 217",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1                        46",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Cir. 2021) (summary order). Similar conclusion, United States\n2 v. Smith, a Ninth Circuit case from 2013, 719 F.3d 1120. That\n3 case explains 2G1.3(a) base offense level and the undue\n4 influence enhancement \"serve unique purposes under the\n5 Guidelines.\"\n6 The defense argues that because the enhancement\n7 applies only if undue influence was exerted with the aim of a\n8 commercial sex act, it does not apply here. But the jury in\n9 Count Six did convict the defendant of sex trafficking Carolyn\n10 to participate in commercial sex acts. The Court finds that\n11 Virginia Roberts, who brought Carolyn and Melissa who was\n12 brought by Carolyn similarly were paid. The remaining victims,\n13 including Jane and Annie, also testified that they received\n14 money and gifts during their abuse which satisfies the\n15 enhancement.\n16 The defendant argues Carolyn was not unduly influenced\n17 to sexually massage Epstein. I find this argument meritless.\n18 The age gap between Carolyn and Epstein and the defendant far\n19 exceeded ten years, and the defendant does not rebut the\n20 resulting presumption of undue influence. 2G1.1, comment note\n21 7. Carolyn testified she was paid to give Epstein sexualized\n22 massages, and she needed the money for her drug addiction.\n23 Later, Carolyn returned to Epstein because she needed the money\n24 for herself and her newborn son. Plainly, taking advantage of\n25 a victim's financial need is a form of undue influence. I'll",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C... (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021591",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Carolyn",
      "Virginia Roberts",
      "Melissa",
      "Jane",
      "Annie",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Ninth Circuit",
      "Southern District Reporters, P.C.",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "2013",
      "06/29/2023",
      "2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "78",
      "3536039",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021591"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to a case involving sex trafficking and undue influence. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document includes a header with case information and a footer with the name of the reporting agency and a phone number."
}