mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003944.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "235",
    "date": "04/22/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 235 Filed 04/22/21 Page 2 of 10\nPage 2\nFirst, the Court's recent decision to sever the perjury counts will both shorten the upcoming trial and free up time for the defense to prepare for a trial that includes the new allegations and charges in the S2 Indictment. Although the defense has expressed concerns that trial on the S2 Indictment would be excessively long, and that the defense would need additional time to prepare for trial, balanced against the two counts added by the S2 Indictment are the two perjury counts severed by the Court's April 16, 2021 opinion and order. (Dkt. No. 207). In other words, the defense has long maintained that the perjury counts would substantially expand the scope of the trial, but those counts will no longer be at issue during trial in July.\nAs the Court may recall, in the defense's view, the Mann Act and perjury counts involved at most \"some minimal amount of overlapping evidence,\" which was \"far outweighed b[y] the much larger inefficiency of substantially lengthening and complicating the trial.\" (Dkt. No. 120 at 12). According to the defense, a trial including the perjury counts would have \"necessarily involve[d] litigating a complicated defamation action within a criminal trial,\" and possibly require resolution of \"[a]pproximately 50 substantive motions\" and \"evidentiary challenges to thousands of deposition questions and answers contained in dozens of bankers boxes.\" (Id. at 9-10, 12). The defense also identified more than a dozen areas of evidence that it claimed would be part of the perjury trial, including \"how discovery is obtained\" in civil litigation, \"[t]he testimony of ten to fifteen other witnesses including fact and expert witnesses\" on materiality, and \"[t]he testimony of Ms. Maxwell's lawyers.\" (Dkt No. 224 at 7-8). As a result, in the defense's view, if the perjury counts were tried together with the Mann Act counts, \"this criminal trial will be subsumed by evidence not relevant to the main charges, the Mann Act Counts.\" (Id. at 8).\nThe Government has never understood the perjury counts to require the resolution of dozens of motions from the civil case or the trial testimony of dozens of witnesses above and\nDOJ-OGR-00003944",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 235 Filed 04/22/21 Page 2 of 10",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, the Court's recent decision to sever the perjury counts will both shorten the upcoming trial and free up time for the defense to prepare for a trial that includes the new allegations and charges in the S2 Indictment. Although the defense has expressed concerns that trial on the S2 Indictment would be excessively long, and that the defense would need additional time to prepare for trial, balanced against the two counts added by the S2 Indictment are the two perjury counts severed by the Court's April 16, 2021 opinion and order. (Dkt. No. 207). In other words, the defense has long maintained that the perjury counts would substantially expand the scope of the trial, but those counts will no longer be at issue during trial in July.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As the Court may recall, in the defense's view, the Mann Act and perjury counts involved at most \"some minimal amount of overlapping evidence,\" which was \"far outweighed b[y] the much larger inefficiency of substantially lengthening and complicating the trial.\" (Dkt. No. 120 at 12). According to the defense, a trial including the perjury counts would have \"necessarily involve[d] litigating a complicated defamation action within a criminal trial,\" and possibly require resolution of \"[a]pproximately 50 substantive motions\" and \"evidentiary challenges to thousands of deposition questions and answers contained in dozens of bankers boxes.\" (Id. at 9-10, 12). The defense also identified more than a dozen areas of evidence that it claimed would be part of the perjury trial, including \"how discovery is obtained\" in civil litigation, \"[t]he testimony of ten to fifteen other witnesses including fact and expert witnesses\" on materiality, and \"[t]he testimony of Ms. Maxwell's lawyers.\" (Dkt No. 224 at 7-8). As a result, in the defense's view, if the perjury counts were tried together with the Mann Act counts, \"this criminal trial will be subsumed by evidence not relevant to the main charges, the Mann Act Counts.\" (Id. at 8).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government has never understood the perjury counts to require the resolution of dozens of motions from the civil case or the trial testimony of dozens of witnesses above and",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003944",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "April 16, 2021",
      "04/22/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "235",
      "Dkt. No. 207",
      "Dkt. No. 120",
      "Dkt No. 224",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003944"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}