mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006113.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "47",
    "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 47 of 93\n\nCounts One, Three, and Five: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law - First Element\n\nStarting with the first element, what is a conspiracy? A conspiracy is an agreement or an understanding, between two or more persons, to accomplish by joint action a criminal or unlawful purpose.\n\nThe essence of the crime of conspiracy is the unlawful agreement between two or more people to violate the law. As I mentioned earlier, the ultimate success of the conspiracy, meaning the actual commission of the crime that is the object of the conspiracy, is not an element of the crime of conspiracy.\n\nIn order to show that a conspiracy existed, the evidence must show that two or more people, in some way or manner, through any contrivance, explicitly or implicitly (that is, spoken or unspoken), came to a mutual understanding to violate the law and to accomplish an unlawful plan. Express language or specific words are not required to indicate assent or attachment to a conspiracy. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that two or more persons came to an understanding, express or implied, to violate the law and to accomplish an unlawful plan, then the Government will have sustained its burden of proof as to this element.\n\nTo satisfy this element of a conspiracy - namely, to show that the conspiracy existed - the Government is not required to show that two or more people sat around a table and entered into a solemn pact, orally or in writing, stating that they had formed a conspiracy to violate the law and spelling out all of the details. Common sense tells you that when people, in fact, agree to enter into a criminal conspiracy, much is left to the unexpressed understanding. It is rare that a conspiracy can be proven by direct evidence of an explicit agreement. Conspirators do not usually reduce their agreements to writing or acknowledge them before a notary public, nor do they publicly broadcast their plans.\n\nIn determining whether such an agreement existed, you may consider direct as well as\n\n47\n\nDOJ-OGR-00006113",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 410-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 47 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Counts One, Three, and Five: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Law - First Element",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Starting with the first element, what is a conspiracy? A conspiracy is an agreement or an understanding, between two or more persons, to accomplish by joint action a criminal or unlawful purpose.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The essence of the crime of conspiracy is the unlawful agreement between two or more people to violate the law. As I mentioned earlier, the ultimate success of the conspiracy, meaning the actual commission of the crime that is the object of the conspiracy, is not an element of the crime of conspiracy.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In order to show that a conspiracy existed, the evidence must show that two or more people, in some way or manner, through any contrivance, explicitly or implicitly (that is, spoken or unspoken), came to a mutual understanding to violate the law and to accomplish an unlawful plan. Express language or specific words are not required to indicate assent or attachment to a conspiracy. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that two or more persons came to an understanding, express or implied, to violate the law and to accomplish an unlawful plan, then the Government will have sustained its burden of proof as to this element.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To satisfy this element of a conspiracy - namely, to show that the conspiracy existed - the Government is not required to show that two or more people sat around a table and entered into a solemn pact, orally or in writing, stating that they had formed a conspiracy to violate the law and spelling out all of the details. Common sense tells you that when people, in fact, agree to enter into a criminal conspiracy, much is left to the unexpressed understanding. It is rare that a conspiracy can be proven by direct evidence of an explicit agreement. Conspirators do not usually reduce their agreements to writing or acknowledge them before a notary public, nor do they publicly broadcast their plans.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In determining whether such an agreement existed, you may consider direct as well as",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "47",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006113",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "410-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006113"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to a conspiracy case. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}