mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006147.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "81",
    "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 81 of 93 Uncalled Witnesses - Equally Available to Both Sides There are people whose names you heard during the course of the trial but did not appear to testify. [If applicable: One or more of the attorneys has referred to their absence from the trial.] I instruct you that each party had an equal opportunity or lack of opportunity to call any of these witnesses. Therefore, you should not draw any inferences or reach any conclusions as to what they would have testified to had they been called. Their absence should not affect your judgement in any way. You should remember my instruction, however, that the law does not impose on the defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence. Adapted from Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instr. 6-7; and the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. Jones, 16 Cr. 553 (AJN) and in United States v. Le, 15 Cr. 38 (AJN). Commented [CE97]: The defense submits that this sentence is not accurate and should be removed. If the government could have but did not call a particular witness or admit certain evidence, it is entirely proper for Ms Maxwell to argue that the government has accordingly not met its burden of proof Commented [RA(98R97]: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This sentence is the norm in the standard uncalled witness instruction. See United States v. Berry, 20 Cr 84 (AJN); United States v. Jones, 16 Cr 533 (AJN); United States v. Lebedev, 15 Cr 769 (AJN); United States v. Pizarro, 17 Cr 151 (AJN); United States v. Le, 15 Cr 38 (AJN); Sand Instr 6-7 The defense is free to argue that the Government has not met its burden of proof. This sentence, however, is simply making the point of the prior paragraph: the jury should not draw an inference or conclusion against either side by the fact that a witness did not testify 81 DOJ-OGR-00006147",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 410-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 81 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Uncalled Witnesses - Equally Available to Both Sides",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "There are people whose names you heard during the course of the trial but did not appear to testify. [If applicable: One or more of the attorneys has referred to their absence from the trial.] I instruct you that each party had an equal opportunity or lack of opportunity to call any of these witnesses. Therefore, you should not draw any inferences or reach any conclusions as to what they would have testified to had they been called. Their absence should not affect your judgement in any way.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "judgement in any way",
      "position": "inline"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "You should remember my instruction, however, that the law does not impose on the defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Adapted from Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instr. 6-7; and the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. Jones, 16 Cr. 553 (AJN) and in United States v. Le, 15 Cr. 38 (AJN).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Commented [CE97]: The defense submits that this sentence is not accurate and should be removed. If the government could have but did not call a particular witness or admit certain evidence, it is entirely proper for Ms Maxwell to argue that the government has accordingly not met its burden of proof",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Commented [RA(98R97]: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This sentence is the norm in the standard uncalled witness instruction. See United States v. Berry, 20 Cr 84 (AJN); United States v. Jones, 16 Cr 533 (AJN); United States v. Lebedev, 15 Cr 769 (AJN); United States v. Pizarro, 17 Cr 151 (AJN); United States v. Le, 15 Cr 38 (AJN); Sand Instr 6-7 The defense is free to argue that the Government has not met its burden of proof. This sentence, however, is simply making the point of the prior paragraph: the jury should not draw an inference or conclusion against either side by the fact that a witness did not testify",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "81",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006147",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "410-1",
      "16 Cr. 553",
      "15 Cr. 38",
      "20 Cr 84",
      "16 Cr 533",
      "15 Cr 769",
      "17 Cr 151",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006147"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or jury instruction with annotations and comments from the defense and government."
}