mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006096.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "30",
    "document_number": "410-1",
    "date": "11/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 410-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 30 of 93\n\nCount Four: Transportation of a Minor to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity - Second Element\n\nThe second element of Count Four which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant Ms. Maxwell transported the individual [Jane Doe-1 pseudonym] with the intent that the individual she engage in any sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York law.\n\nIn order to establish this element, it is not necessary for the government to prove that the illegal sexual activity was the defendant - Ms. Maxwell's sole purpose for transporting Jane Doe-1 across state lines. A person may have several different purposes or motives for such conduct, and each may prompt in varying degrees the person's actions. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, however, that a significant and motivating purpose of Jane Doe-1's travel across state lines was that she would engage in illegal sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein.\n\nIn other words, the illegal sexual activity must not have been merely incidental to the trip.\n\nAdapted from Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instrs. and 64-4, 64-18; Edward J. Devitt et al., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Instr. 60-07; and the charge of the Hon. Denise L. Cote in United States v. Purcell, 18 Cr. 081 (DLC). See United States v. Vargas-Cordon, 733 F.3d 366, 375 (2d Cir. 2013) (\"[T]he contemplated unlawful sexual activity need not be the defendant's sole purpose for transporting a minor in interstate or foreign commerce. Rather, it must only be a 'dominant purpose' of the transportation.\"); United States v. Miller, 148 F.3d 207, 212 (2d Cir. 1998) (finding no error in jury instruction that engaging in illegal sexual activity \"need not have been [the defendant's] only purpose or motivation, but it must have been more than merely incidental; it must have been one of the dominant purposes of the trip\").\n\nCommented [RA(45)]: The Government repeats its objection from page 21\n\nDOJ-OGR-00006096",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 410-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 30 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Count Four: Transportation of a Minor to Engage in Illegal Sexual Activity - Second Element",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The second element of Count Four which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant Ms. Maxwell transported the individual [Jane Doe-1 pseudonym] with the intent that the individual she engage in any sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense in violation of New York law.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In order to establish this element, it is not necessary for the government to prove that the illegal sexual activity was the defendant - Ms. Maxwell's sole purpose for transporting Jane Doe-1 across state lines. A person may have several different purposes or motives for such conduct, and each may prompt in varying degrees the person's actions. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, however, that a significant and motivating purpose of Jane Doe-1's travel across state lines was that she would engage in illegal sexual activity with Jeffrey Epstein.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In other words, the illegal sexual activity must not have been merely incidental to the trip.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Adapted from Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instrs. and 64-4, 64-18; Edward J. Devitt et al., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Instr. 60-07; and the charge of the Hon. Denise L. Cote in United States v. Purcell, 18 Cr. 081 (DLC). See United States v. Vargas-Cordon, 733 F.3d 366, 375 (2d Cir. 2013) (\"[T]he contemplated unlawful sexual activity need not be the defendant's sole purpose for transporting a minor in interstate or foreign commerce. Rather, it must only be a 'dominant purpose' of the transportation.\"); United States v. Miller, 148 F.3d 207, 212 (2d Cir. 1998) (finding no error in jury instruction that engaging in illegal sexual activity \"need not have been [the defendant's] only purpose or motivation, but it must have been more than merely incidental; it must have been one of the dominant purposes of the trip\").",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [RA(45)]: The Government repeats its objection from page 21",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006096",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Jane Doe-1",
      "Denise L. Cote"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "410-1",
      "18 Cr. 081 (DLC)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006096"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with one handwritten comment in the margin. The document is page 30 of a 93-page document."
}