mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005772.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "395",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 395 Filed 10/29/21 Page 7 of 9\n\nIn view of this special role, “The prosecutor should not argue in terms of counsel’s personal opinion, and should not imply special or secret knowledge of the truth or of witness credibility.” ABA Criminal Justice Standards, Prosecution Function, Standard 3-6.8, Closing Arguments to the Trier of Fact (4th ed. 2017). To do otherwise poses two distinct dangers: such comments can convey the impression that evidence not present to the jury, but known to the prosecutor, supports the charges against the defendant and can thus jeopardize the defendant’s right to be tried solely on the basis of the evidence presented to the jury; and the prosecutor’s opinion carries with it the imprimatur of the Government and may induce the jury to trust the Government’s judgment rather than its own view of the evidence.\n\nUnited States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1985). When the government uses the term “victim,” however, it improperly vouches for the credibility of the accusers. E.g., Devey, 138 P.3d at 95.\n\nIt is even more important for the Court to refrain from referring to the accusers as “victims” or “minor victims.” This Court serves as the neutral arbiter of the law. And it is a matter of common knowledge that jurors hang tenaciously upon remarks made by the court during the progress of the trial, and if, perchance, they are enabled to discover the views of the court regarding the effect of a witness’ testimony or the merits of the case, they almost invariably follow them.\n\nState v. Philpot, 66 N.W. 730, 732 (Iowa 1896). Thus,\n\nA judicial reference to the jury that a complaining witness is a ‘victim’ implicitly tells the jury that the judge believes that a crime has been committed. For a judge to communicate to the jury that witnesses were victimized, in a case where the defense is that the complaining witness testifies never occurred, prejudices that defendant unfairly.\n\nFritzinger v. State, 10 A.3d 603, 610 (Del. 2010).\n\nThere is a final reason no trial participant should refer to the accusers as “minor victims.”\n\nSeveral charges in this case require proof that Ms. Maxwell knew the accusers were less than eighteen years old at the time of the alleged conduct. Referring to the accusers as “minor victims” not only supposes the accusers were victims at all, but it also conveys the speaker’s belief that Ms. Maxwell knew they were “minors.” In this other way, referring to the accusers as 4\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005772",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 395 Filed 10/29/21 Page 7 of 9",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In view of this special role, “The prosecutor should not argue in terms of counsel’s personal opinion, and should not imply special or secret knowledge of the truth or of witness credibility.” ABA Criminal Justice Standards, Prosecution Function, Standard 3-6.8, Closing Arguments to the Trier of Fact (4th ed. 2017). To do otherwise poses two distinct dangers: such comments can convey the impression that evidence not present to the jury, but known to the prosecutor, supports the charges against the defendant and can thus jeopardize the defendant’s right to be tried solely on the basis of the evidence presented to the jury; and the prosecutor’s opinion carries with it the imprimatur of the Government and may induce the jury to trust the Government’s judgment rather than its own view of the evidence.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1985). When the government uses the term “victim,” however, it improperly vouches for the credibility of the accusers. E.g., Devey, 138 P.3d at 95.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It is even more important for the Court to refrain from referring to the accusers as “victims” or “minor victims.” This Court serves as the neutral arbiter of the law. And it is a matter of common knowledge that jurors hang tenaciously upon remarks made by the court during the progress of the trial, and if, perchance, they are enabled to discover the views of the court regarding the effect of a witness’ testimony or the merits of the case, they almost invariably follow them.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "State v. Philpot, 66 N.W. 730, 732 (Iowa 1896). Thus,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A judicial reference to the jury that a complaining witness is a ‘victim’ implicitly tells the jury that the judge believes that a crime has been committed. For a judge to communicate to the jury that witnesses were victimized, in a case where the defense is that the complaining witness testifies never occurred, prejudices that defendant unfairly.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Fritzinger v. State, 10 A.3d 603, 610 (Del. 2010).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "There is a final reason no trial participant should refer to the accusers as “minor victims.”",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Several charges in this case require proof that Ms. Maxwell knew the accusers were less than eighteen years old at the time of the alleged conduct. Referring to the accusers as “minor victims” not only supposes the accusers were victims at all, but it also conveys the speaker’s belief that Ms. Maxwell knew they were “minors.” In this other way, referring to the accusers as",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005772",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "ABA"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Iowa",
      "Delaware"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "1985",
      "1896",
      "2010",
      "2017"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 395",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005772"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the importance of not referring to accusers as 'victims' or 'minor victims' during the trial. The document includes citations to various court cases and legal standards."
}