mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006118.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "52",
    "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 52 of 93\n\nCounts One and Three to be illegalcriminal, the victimindividual must have been under the age of consent in the jurisdiction where the sex acts took place. I instruct you that, at times, relevant to the charges in the Indictment;\n\n1. The age of consent in Florida was 18 years old;\n2. The age of consent in New York was 17 years old;\n3. The age of consent in the United Kingdom was 16 years old; and\n4. The age of consent in New Mexico for the conduct alleged by Jane Doe-2 was 13 years old.\n\nIf the individual was at or above the age of consent in the relevant jurisdiction when the sexual activity occurred, then for the purposes of Counts One and Three, the sexual activity was not illegal - in other words, it was not \"sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.\"\n\nCount Five charges Ms. Maxwell the defendant with participating in a conspiracy, from at least in or about 2001, up to and including in or about 2004, to commit sex trafficking of a minor. The object of the conspiracy charged in Count Five of the Indictment is to commit sex trafficking of a minor. I have already reviewed the elements of that offense in connection with Count Six. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell the defendant agreed with at least one other person that those elements be done, then the sex trafficking of minors objective would be proved.\n\nAdapted from the charge of the Hon. Kimba M. Wood in United States v. Almonte, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW).\n\nCommented [CE69]: The defense submits that this language is necessary to avoid juror confusion on the issue of what qualifies as illegal sexual activity for the purposes of Counts One and Three and is consistent with the Court's rulings on the motions in limine\n\nCommented [RA(70R69]: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government's proposed instructions only permit the jury to convict on a violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55 Accordingly, there is no need to inform the jury about the ages of consent in other jurisdictions The problem identified by the defense only arises if, per the defense's proposed instructions, the conspiracy counts are de-coupled from the substantive counts\n\nCommented [RA(71]: GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The Government objects to this language, which risks confusing the jury Sexual activity that occurred above the agent of consent could not be a basis for conviction on its own, but it can still be evidence of the offense Informing the jury that such activity is \"not illegal\" improperly suggests that the jury should not consider such evidence\n\nThere is also no risk that the jury will convict solely based on sexual activity that occurred after the Minor Victims were above the age of consent, because the jury is instructed that the defendant must have conspired to violate N Y Penal Law Section 130 55, and that section is violated when the victim is below the age of consent\n\nDOJ-OGR-00006118",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 410-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 52 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Counts One and Three to be illegalcriminal, the victimindividual must have been under the age of consent in the jurisdiction where the sex acts took place. I instruct you that, at times, relevant to the charges in the Indictment;",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. The age of consent in Florida was 18 years old;\n2. The age of consent in New York was 17 years old;\n3. The age of consent in the United Kingdom was 16 years old; and\n4. The age of consent in New Mexico for the conduct alleged by Jane Doe-2 was 13 years old.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "If the individual was at or above the age of consent in the relevant jurisdiction when the sexual activity occurred, then for the purposes of Counts One and Three, the sexual activity was not illegal - in other words, it was not \"sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.\"",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Count Five charges Ms. Maxwell the defendant with participating in a conspiracy, from at least in or about 2001, up to and including in or about 2004, to commit sex trafficking of a minor. The object of the conspiracy charged in Count Five of the Indictment is to commit sex trafficking of a minor. I have already reviewed the elements of that offense in connection with Count Six. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Maxwell the defendant agreed with at least one other person that those elements be done, then the sex trafficking of minors objective would be proved.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Adapted from the charge of the Hon. Kimba M. Wood in United States v. Almonte, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW).",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [CE69]: The defense submits that this language is necessary to avoid juror confusion on the issue of what qualifies as illegal sexual activity for the purposes of Counts One and Three and is consistent with the Court's rulings on the motions in limine",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [RA(70R69]: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government's proposed instructions only permit the jury to convict on a violation of New York Penal Law Section 130.55 Accordingly, there is no need to inform the jury about the ages of consent in other jurisdictions The problem identified by the defense only arises if, per the defense's proposed instructions, the conspiracy counts are de-coupled from the substantive counts",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [RA(71]: GOVERNMENT OBJECTION: The Government objects to this language, which risks confusing the jury Sexual activity that occurred above the agent of consent could not be a basis for conviction on its own, but it can still be evidence of the offense Informing the jury that such activity is \"not illegal\" improperly suggests that the jury should not consider such evidence",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006118",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane Doe-2",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Kimba M. Wood"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Florida",
      "New York",
      "United Kingdom",
      "New Mexico"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/04/21",
      "2001",
      "2004"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "410-1",
      "16 Cr. 670 (KMW)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006118"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to a sex trafficking case. The text includes legal instructions and comments from both the defense and the government. The document is well-formatted, but there are some handwritten comments in the margins."
}