mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003120.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "186",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 186 of 239 B. Applicable Law \"Although the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure grant the Court authority to strike surplusage from an indictment, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d), '[i]t has long been the policy of courts within the Southern District to refrain from tampering with indictments.'\" United States v. Bin Laden, 91 F. Supp. 2d 600, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quoting United States v. Jimenez, 824 F. Supp. 351, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)). \"Motions to strike surplusage from an indictment will be granted only where the challenged allegations are 'not relevant to the crime charged and are inflammatory or prejudicial.'\" United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1013 (2d Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Napolitano, 552 F. Supp. 465, 480 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)). \"[I]f evidence of the allegation is admissible and relevant to the charge, then regardless of how prejudicial the language is, it may not be stricken.\" Id. (brackets in original) (quoting United States v. DePalma, 461 F. Supp. 778, 797 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)); see also United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91, 99 (2d Cir. 2001). \"This standard is an exacting one, and only rarely is alleged surplusage stricken from an indictment.\" 159 DOJ-OGR-00003120",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 186 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Applicable Law",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"Although the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure grant the Court authority to strike surplusage from an indictment, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d), '[i]t has long been the policy of courts within the Southern District to refrain from tampering with indictments.'\" United States v. Bin Laden, 91 F. Supp. 2d 600, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quoting United States v. Jimenez, 824 F. Supp. 351, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)). \"Motions to strike surplusage from an indictment will be granted only where the challenged allegations are 'not relevant to the crime charged and are inflammatory or prejudicial.'\" United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993, 1013 (2d Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Napolitano, 552 F. Supp. 465, 480 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)). \"[I]f evidence of the allegation is admissible and relevant to the charge, then regardless of how prejudicial the language is, it may not be stricken.\" Id. (brackets in original) (quoting United States v. DePalma, 461 F. Supp. 778, 797 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)); see also United States v. Mulder, 273 F.3d 91, 99 (2d Cir. 2001). \"This standard is an exacting one, and only rarely is alleged surplusage stricken from an indictment.\"",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "159",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003120",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "2000",
      "1993",
      "1990",
      "1982",
      "1978",
      "2001"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003120"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is from a court case with the reference number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE."
}