mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005865.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "82 of 84",
    "document_number": "397",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 82 of 84\nevidence—including evidence of rape, where it occurs—is the core conduct in the case. See, e.g., United States v. English, No. 18 Cr. 492 (PGG), 2020 WL 7773606, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2020) (describing evidence of rape in a trial for sex trafficking of minors); United States v. Graham, No. 14 Cr. 500 (NSR), 2015 WL 6161292, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015) (concluding, in response to the argument that “rape” is a legal term, “there is a “critical distinction between a patient telling a physician that she ‘had intercourse with three men’ and a patient telling the physician that she was ‘raped’ by three men.”). Its probative value is certainly not outweighed by any unfair prejudice. Nor is it the case that evidence of a rape—especially at the level of abstraction described by the defense—is significantly more inflammatory than the charged crime: the sexual abuse of minors.\nIn the event that a Minor Victim testifies that Epstein raped them, it is part of the charged conspiracy in this case, and it should be admitted.\nVIII. The Remaining Defense Motions are Aimed at Evidence the Government Does Not Plan to Elicit\nThree of the defense motions are aimed at precluding the Government from offering evidence it does not intend to offer at trial.\nFirst, the defense seeks to preclude the Government from arguing that the defendant was hiding from, evading, or fleeing from law enforcement between Epstein’s arrest and her own. (Def. Mot. 5 at 1). The Government’s view remains that such conduct reflects the defendant’s consciousness of her guilt (see id. at 2 (citing multiple Government filings)), and the Government does not agree that such evidence lacks an adequate factual basis or is inadmissible under Rule 403. (See id. at 6-9). However, the Government does not intend—and so will agree not to offer—\n81\nDOJ-OGR-00005865",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "header",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 82 of 84",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "evidence—including evidence of rape, where it occurs—is the core conduct in the case. See, e.g., United States v. English, No. 18 Cr. 492 (PGG), 2020 WL 7773606, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2020) (describing evidence of rape in a trial for sex trafficking of minors); United States v. Graham, No. 14 Cr. 500 (NSR), 2015 WL 6161292, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2015) (concluding, in response to the argument that “rape” is a legal term, “there is a “critical distinction between a patient telling a physician that she ‘had intercourse with three men’ and a patient telling the physician that she was ‘raped’ by three men.”). Its probative value is certainly not outweighed by any unfair prejudice. Nor is it the case that evidence of a rape—especially at the level of abstraction described by the defense—is significantly more inflammatory than the charged crime: the sexual abuse of minors.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In the event that a Minor Victim testifies that Epstein raped them, it is part of the charged conspiracy in this case, and it should be admitted.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "VIII. The Remaining Defense Motions are Aimed at Evidence the Government Does Not Plan to Elicit",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Three of the defense motions are aimed at precluding the Government from offering evidence it does not intend to offer at trial.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, the defense seeks to preclude the Government from arguing that the defendant was hiding from, evading, or fleeing from law enforcement between Epstein’s arrest and her own. (Def. Mot. 5 at 1). The Government’s view remains that such conduct reflects the defendant’s consciousness of her guilt (see id. at 2 (citing multiple Government filings)), and the Government does not agree that such evidence lacks an adequate factual basis or is inadmissible under Rule 403. (See id. at 6-9). However, the Government does not intend—and so will agree not to offer—",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "81",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005865",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "Dec. 30, 2020",
      "Oct. 20, 2015",
      "10/29/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "397",
      "18 Cr. 492 (PGG)",
      "14 Cr. 500 (NSR)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005865"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving sex trafficking and abuse of minors. The text discusses the admissibility of evidence and the government's position on certain defense motions."
}