mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006105.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "39",
    "document_number": "410-1",
    "date": "11/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": true,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 410-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 39 of 93\n\nCount Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor - Fourth Element\n\nThe fourth and final element of Count Six which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant's conduct was in interstate or foreign commerce or affected interstate commerce.\n\nInterstate commerce simply means the movement of goods, services, money and individuals between any two or more states.\n\nI instruct you that acts and transactions that cross state lines, or which affect the flow of money in the stream of commerce to any degree, however minimal, are acts and transactions affecting interstate commerce. For instance, it affects interstate commerce to use products that traveled in interstate commerce.\n\nIt is not necessary for the Government to prove that Ms. Maxwell specifically knew or intended that her conduct would affect interstate commerce; it is only necessary that the natural consequences of such conduct would affect interstate commerce in some way, even if minor.\n\nIf you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the recruitment, enticement, harboring, transportation, providing, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of engaging in commercial sex acts was economic in nature and involved the crossing of state lines, or was economic in nature and otherwise affected the flow of money to any degree, however minimal, you may find that the interstate commerce requirement of the offense of sex trafficking of a minor has been satisfied.\n\nI further instruct you that to find that this element has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not necessary for you to find that any interstate or foreign travel occurred. Proof of actual travel is not required.\n\nAdapted from the charge given by the Hon. Kimba M. Wood in United States v. Almonte, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW). See United States v. Graham, 707 F. App'x 23, 26 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order)\n\nCommented [CE51]: The phrase \"or foreign\" is not necessary as there is no allegation that Ms Maxwell's conduct as to Count Six affected foreign commerce\n\nCommented [RA(52R51]: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This is part of the indictment and should not be removed\n\nCommented [CE53]: The defense objects to these instructions as redundant and/or unnecessary\n\nCommented [RA(54R53]: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This charge was given in United States v. Almonte, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW). \"Affecting interstate commerce\" is not an intuitive concept for lay jurors, so additional instruction would be helpful. The defense does not argue that this is an incorrect statement of the law.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00006105",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 410-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 39 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Count Six: Sex Trafficking of a Minor - Fourth Element",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The fourth and final element of Count Six which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant's conduct was in interstate or foreign commerce or affected interstate commerce.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [CE51]: The phrase \"or foreign\" is not necessary as there is no allegation that Ms Maxwell's conduct as to Count Six affected foreign commerce",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [RA(52R51]: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This is part of the indictment and should not be removed",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [CE53]: The defense objects to these instructions as redundant and/or unnecessary",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [RA(54R53]: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This charge was given in United States v. Almonte, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW). \"Affecting interstate commerce\" is not an intuitive concept for lay jurors, so additional instruction would be helpful. The defense does not argue that this is an incorrect statement of the law.",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Adapted from the charge given by the Hon. Kimba M. Wood in United States v. Almonte, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW). See United States v. Graham, 707 F. App'x 23, 26 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order)",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006105",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Kimba M. Wood"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "410-1",
      "16 Cr. 670",
      "707 F. App'x 23"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a sex trafficking case. There are handwritten comments in the margins, likely from legal professionals reviewing the document."
}