mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005706.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "389",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 389 Filed 10/29/21 Page 5 of 11\n\nId. at 24 (citing United States v. Halper, 590 F.2d 422, 430 (2d Cir. 1978). The Court did not believe that a limiting instruction would be adequate to mitigate the risk of prejudice to Ms. Maxwell. Id.\n\nThe Court further found that any consideration of the perjury charges would likely require disqualification of at least one of her attorneys in the criminal case, two of whom had represented her at the civil depositions, which would significantly prejudice Ms. Maxwell.\n\nImportantly, a joint trial is also likely to require disqualification of at least one of Maxwell's attorneys from participating as an advocate on her behalf.... Maxwell's counsel in the civil action and the deposition may be important fact witnesses on the perjury counts. Even if counsel were not required to testify, trying all counts together could force Maxwell to choose between having her counsel testify on her behalf on the perjury charges and having them assist her in defending the Mann Act charges.... Disqualification of counsel also implicates Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to be represented by the counsel of her choice. The prejudice to Maxwell is especially pronounced because the attorneys who represented her in the civil case have worked with her for years and are particularly familiar with the facts surrounding the criminal prosecution.\n\nId. at 24-25 (internal citations omitted). Finally, the Court noted that much of the proof relevant to the perjury counts was beyond the scope of the \"narrower issues\" presented by the other charges, that the perjury counts involved legal and factual questions were \"unlikely to bear on the other charges,\" and that addressing the perjury counts would involve a \"significant investment of time and resources\" that would impair the efficiency of the trial. Id. at 25-26. For these reasons, the Court found that Ms. Maxwell had shown \"significant unfairness\" that outweighed the burden of conducting separate trials and severed the perjury counts. Id. at 23, 26.\n\nAccordingly, the government will not be allowed to introduce at trial evidence of any alleged false deposition statements by Ms. Maxwell as evidence of the perjury counts. The superseding indictment, however, attempts to link the purportedly false statements to the other\n\n2\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005706",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 389 Filed 10/29/21 Page 5 of 11",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. at 24 (citing United States v. Halper, 590 F.2d 422, 430 (2d Cir. 1978). The Court did not believe that a limiting instruction would be adequate to mitigate the risk of prejudice to Ms. Maxwell. Id.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court further found that any consideration of the perjury charges would likely require disqualification of at least one of her attorneys in the criminal case, two of whom had represented her at the civil depositions, which would significantly prejudice Ms. Maxwell.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Importantly, a joint trial is also likely to require disqualification of at least one of Maxwell's attorneys from participating as an advocate on her behalf.... Maxwell's counsel in the civil action and the deposition may be important fact witnesses on the perjury counts. Even if counsel were not required to testify, trying all counts together could force Maxwell to choose between having her counsel testify on her behalf on the perjury charges and having them assist her in defending the Mann Act charges.... Disqualification of counsel also implicates Maxwell's Sixth Amendment right to be represented by the counsel of her choice. The prejudice to Maxwell is especially pronounced because the attorneys who represented her in the civil case have worked with her for years and are particularly familiar with the facts surrounding the criminal prosecution.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. at 24-25 (internal citations omitted). Finally, the Court noted that much of the proof relevant to the perjury counts was beyond the scope of the \"narrower issues\" presented by the other charges, that the perjury counts involved legal and factual questions were \"unlikely to bear on the other charges,\" and that addressing the perjury counts would involve a \"significant investment of time and resources\" that would impair the efficiency of the trial. Id. at 25-26. For these reasons, the Court found that Ms. Maxwell had shown \"significant unfairness\" that outweighed the burden of conducting separate trials and severed the perjury counts. Id. at 23, 26.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Accordingly, the government will not be allowed to introduce at trial evidence of any alleged false deposition statements by Ms. Maxwell as evidence of the perjury counts. The superseding indictment, however, attempts to link the purportedly false statements to the other",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005706",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 389",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005706"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 5 of 11."
}