mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006144.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "78 of 93",
    "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 78 of 93 Limiting Instruction - Similar Act Evidence [If Applicable] The Government has offered evidence which it argues shows tending to show that on different occasions, the defendant Ms. Maxwell engaged in conduct similar to the charges in the Indictment. It is for you to decide whether Ms. Maxwell engaged in the other conduct. Let me remind you that the defendant Ms. Maxwell is on trial only for committing acts alleged in the Indictment. Accordingly, you may not consider this evidence of similar acts as a substitute for proof that the defendant Ms. Maxwell committed the crimes charged. Nor may you consider this evidence as proof that a defendant Ms. Maxwell has a criminal personality or bad character. The evidence of the other, similar acts was admitted for a much more limited purpose and you may consider it only for that limited purpose. If you determine that the defendant Ms. Maxwell committed the acts charged in the Indictment and the similar acts as well, then you may, but you need not draw an inference that in doing the acts charged in the Indictment, that defendant Ms. Maxwell acted knowingly and intentionally and not because of some mistake, accident, or other innocent reasons. You may also consider this evidence in determining whether the defendant Ms. Maxwell utilized a common scheme or plan in committing both the crimes charged in the Indictment and the similar acts introduced by the Government. Evidence of similar acts may not be considered by you for any other purpose. Specifically, you may not consider it as evidence that the defendant Ms. Maxwell is of bad character or has the propensity to commit crimes. Adapted from Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instr. 5-25; and the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. Jones, 16 Cr. 553 (AJN). Commented [CE95]: The defense renews its objection to admission of any 404(b) or other act evidence against Ms Maxwell Commented [RA(96]: The Government objects to this text as repetitive DOJ-OGR-00006144",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 410-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 78 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Limiting Instruction - Similar Act Evidence [If Applicable]",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government has offered evidence which it argues shows tending to show that on different occasions, the defendant Ms. Maxwell engaged in conduct similar to the charges in the Indictment. It is for you to decide whether Ms. Maxwell engaged in the other conduct. Let me remind you that the defendant Ms. Maxwell is on trial only for committing acts alleged in the Indictment. Accordingly, you may not consider this evidence of similar acts as a substitute for proof that the defendant Ms. Maxwell committed the crimes charged. Nor may you consider this evidence as proof that a defendant Ms. Maxwell has a criminal personality or bad character. The evidence of the other, similar acts was admitted for a much more limited purpose and you may consider it only for that limited purpose. If you determine that the defendant Ms. Maxwell committed the acts charged in the Indictment and the similar acts as well, then you may, but you need not draw an inference that in doing the acts charged in the Indictment, that defendant Ms. Maxwell acted knowingly and intentionally and not because of some mistake, accident, or other innocent reasons. You may also consider this evidence in determining whether the defendant Ms. Maxwell utilized a common scheme or plan in committing both the crimes charged in the Indictment and the similar acts introduced by the Government. Evidence of similar acts may not be considered by you for any other purpose. Specifically, you may not consider it as evidence that the defendant Ms. Maxwell is of bad character or has the propensity to commit crimes.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Adapted from Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instr. 5-25; and the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. Jones, 16 Cr. 553 (AJN).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [CE95]: The defense renews its objection to admission of any 404(b) or other act evidence against Ms Maxwell",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [RA(96]: The Government objects to this text as repetitive",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006144",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "410-1",
      "16 Cr. 553 (AJN)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006144"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. It contains a limiting instruction regarding similar act evidence and comments from both the defense and the government."
}