mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006099.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "33",
    "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 33 of 93\n\nCounts Two and Four Failure to Accomplish Intended Activity is Immaterial\n\nNow, with respect to Counts Two and Four, it is not a defense that the sexual activity which may have been intended by the defendant was not accomplished.\n\nIn other words, it is not necessary for the Government to prove that anyone, in fact, engaged in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense with the individual after she was enticed, for Count Two, or transported, for Count Four, across state lines. It is enough if defendant has the requisite intent at the time of the enticement or transportation.\n\nAdapted from Edward J. Devitt, et al., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Instr. 60-06. See United States v. Bronsmoyer, 616 F.3d 120, 120-30 & n.8 (2d Cir. 2010) (“The plain wording of the statute requires that the mens rea of intent coincide with the actus reus of crossing state lines.”); Cleveland v. United States, 320 U.S. 14, 20 (1946). (“G]uilt under the Mann Act turns on the purpose which motivates the transportation, not on its accomplishment.”).\n\nCommented [CE47]: If the government’s witnesses testify as expected – i.e., that they engaged in repeated sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein when they were underage – this instruction is unnecessary\n\nCommented [RA(48R47]: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Insofar as the conspiracy counts incorporate Counts Two and Four, this instruction is likely necessary. The defense does not object on the ground that it is an incorrect statement of the law\n\nIn any event, the defense is presumably planning to attack the credibility of these witnesses, so the premise that the jury will accept any particular part of their testimony cannot be assumed\n\nDOJ-OGR-00006099",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 410-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 33 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Counts Two and Four Failure to Accomplish Intended Activity is Immaterial",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Now, with respect to Counts Two and Four, it is not a defense that the sexual activity which may have been intended by the defendant was not accomplished.\n\nIn other words, it is not necessary for the Government to prove that anyone, in fact, engaged in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense with the individual after she was enticed, for Count Two, or transported, for Count Four, across state lines. It is enough if defendant has the requisite intent at the time of the enticement or transportation.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Adapted from Edward J. Devitt, et al., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Instr. 60-06. See United States v. Bronsmoyer, 616 F.3d 120, 120-30 & n.8 (2d Cir. 2010) (“The plain wording of the statute requires that the mens rea of intent coincide with the actus reus of crossing state lines.”); Cleveland v. United States, 320 U.S. 14, 20 (1946). (“G]uilt under the Mann Act turns on the purpose which motivates the transportation, not on its accomplishment.”).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [CE47]: If the government’s witnesses testify as expected – i.e., that they engaged in repeated sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein when they were underage – this instruction is unnecessary",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [RA(48R47]: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Insofar as the conspiracy counts incorporate Counts Two and Four, this instruction is likely necessary. The defense does not object on the ground that it is an incorrect statement of the law",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "In any event, the defense is presumably planning to attack the credibility of these witnesses, so the premise that the jury will accept any particular part of their testimony cannot be assumed",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006099",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Edward J. Devitt"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/04/21",
      "2010",
      "1946"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 410-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006099"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text includes legal arguments and references to previous cases. There are handwritten comments in the margin, likely from a legal professional reviewing the document."
}