mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003129.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "195",
    "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 195 of 239\n\nStates v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 487 (2d Cir. 1984). Here, the defendant's specific and unique approach to preparing minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein demonstrate the existence of such an idiosyncratic pattern warranting admission.\n\nOther acts evidence is, like all other evidence, inadmissible under Rule 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Evidence is unfairly prejudicial, however, \"only when it tends to have some adverse effect upon a defendant beyond tending to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission into evidence.\" United States v. Figueroa, 618 F.2d 934, 943 (2d Cir. 1980). Other acts evidence is typically not unfairly prejudicial where it is not \"any more sensational or disturbing than the crimes\" with which the defendant has been charged. United States v. Rolan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 804 (2d Cir. 1990).\n\nHere, as already discussed, evidence regarding Minor Victim-3's experiences with the defendant and Epstein are no more inflammatory or upsetting than those of Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-2. Those experiences include a wide range of abuse at the hands of Epstein, including abuse that the defendant witnessed and participated in herself. Evidence regarding similar events involving Minor Victim-3, who was of a similar age and experienced similar types of sexual contact, is no more \"sensational or disturbing\" than the other acts detailed in the Indictment. Id. Evidence of other acts involving the grooming or abuse of minor victims is regularly admitted for similar purposes in cases where charges allege sexual activity with minors. See, e.g., United States v. Vickers, 708 F. App'x 732, 737 (2d Cir. 2017) (\"As to the testimony concerning Vickers' 'grooming' of his victims, we conclude that such evidence was admissible even under Rule 404(b), because it was probative of Vickers' knowledge of how to secure adolescent boys' trust so that he could sexually abuse them. We identify no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to admit all of the challenged testimony [regarding uncharged acts of sexual abuse] under Rule\n\n168\nDOJ-OGR-00003129",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 195 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "States v. Sliker, 751 F.2d 477, 487 (2d Cir. 1984). Here, the defendant's specific and unique approach to preparing minor girls to engage in sex acts with Epstein demonstrate the existence of such an idiosyncratic pattern warranting admission.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Other acts evidence is, like all other evidence, inadmissible under Rule 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Evidence is unfairly prejudicial, however, \"only when it tends to have some adverse effect upon a defendant beyond tending to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission into evidence.\" United States v. Figueroa, 618 F.2d 934, 943 (2d Cir. 1980). Other acts evidence is typically not unfairly prejudicial where it is not \"any more sensational or disturbing than the crimes\" with which the defendant has been charged. United States v. Rolan-Zapata, 916 F.2d 795, 804 (2d Cir. 1990).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here, as already discussed, evidence regarding Minor Victim-3's experiences with the defendant and Epstein are no more inflammatory or upsetting than those of Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-2. Those experiences include a wide range of abuse at the hands of Epstein, including abuse that the defendant witnessed and participated in herself. Evidence regarding similar events involving Minor Victim-3, who was of a similar age and experienced similar types of sexual contact, is no more \"sensational or disturbing\" than the other acts detailed in the Indictment. Id. Evidence of other acts involving the grooming or abuse of minor victims is regularly admitted for similar purposes in cases where charges allege sexual activity with minors. See, e.g., United States v. Vickers, 708 F. App'x 732, 737 (2d Cir. 2017) (\"As to the testimony concerning Vickers' 'grooming' of his victims, we conclude that such evidence was admissible even under Rule 404(b), because it was probative of Vickers' knowledge of how to secure adolescent boys' trust so that he could sexually abuse them. We identify no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to admit all of the challenged testimony [regarding uncharged acts of sexual abuse] under Rule",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "168",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003129",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Minor Victim-1",
      "Minor Victim-2",
      "Minor Victim-3",
      "Vickers"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003129"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving sexual abuse of minors. The text references various legal precedents and rules of evidence."
}