mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006478.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "61",
    "document_number": "439",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 61 of 69\nevidence during trial; none stands for the specific relief requested by the government: that \"before the Court permits the defense to offer evidence or make argument regarding other crimes that did not involve the defendant, the Court should require the defense to proffer the basis and relevance of that evidence.\" For the reasons discussed supra in subsection (A), there is nothing in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that require the defense to disclose its argument or evidence pre-trial in the manner suggested by the government.\n\nIndeed, the only case cited by the government which dealt with a motion in limine, Judge Matusumoto's decision in United States v. Rivera, No. 13 Cr. 149 (KAM), 2015 WL 1725991 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2015), actually undercuts the government's position. See Mot. at 43.\n\nAlthough the Court excluded pre-trial evidence of \"unrelated prior good conduct, i.e., charitable giving or cooperation with law enforcement,\" it held:\n\nTo the extent that evidence of good conduct is relevant to the charged conduct (i.e., to establish an alibi) or may be necessary to prevent misleading the jury, the court will consider its introduction at trial. The defendants are cautioned, however, that evidence of good conduct that does not refute evidence of the offense charged will not be admitted.\n\nId. at *2. Thus, the court properly excluded evidence - unrelated to the charged conspiracy - of the defendant's \"good\" propensity, and it also properly reserved for trial the admissibility of \"evidence of good conduct ... relevant to the charged conduct\" or as \"may be necessary to prevent misleading the jury.\" Here, too, evidence that the purported conspiracies operated without the knowledge or participation of Ms. Maxwell during the period charged amounts to direct evidence that the conspiratorial agreement or knowledge of the objectives likewise did not exist. Only after the government has made its opening statements and put on its evidence will the defense even know, much less be in a position to argue, what contrary evidence will be offered. As with the Court in Rivera, this Court should defer ruling on the admissibility of any such evidence until the time it is offered into evidence by the defense.\n\n53\nDOJ-OGR-00006478",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 439 Filed 11/12/21 Page 61 of 69",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "evidence during trial; none stands for the specific relief requested by the government: that \"before the Court permits the defense to offer evidence or make argument regarding other crimes that did not involve the defendant, the Court should require the defense to proffer the basis and relevance of that evidence.\" For the reasons discussed supra in subsection (A), there is nothing in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that require the defense to disclose its argument or evidence pre-trial in the manner suggested by the government.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Indeed, the only case cited by the government which dealt with a motion in limine, Judge Matusumoto's decision in United States v. Rivera, No. 13 Cr. 149 (KAM), 2015 WL 1725991 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2015), actually undercuts the government's position. See Mot. at 43.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although the Court excluded pre-trial evidence of \"unrelated prior good conduct, i.e., charitable giving or cooperation with law enforcement,\" it held:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To the extent that evidence of good conduct is relevant to the charged conduct (i.e., to establish an alibi) or may be necessary to prevent misleading the jury, the court will consider its introduction at trial. The defendants are cautioned, however, that evidence of good conduct that does not refute evidence of the offense charged will not be admitted.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. at *2. Thus, the court properly excluded evidence - unrelated to the charged conspiracy - of the defendant's \"good\" propensity, and it also properly reserved for trial the admissibility of \"evidence of good conduct ... relevant to the charged conduct\" or as \"may be necessary to prevent misleading the jury.\" Here, too, evidence that the purported conspiracies operated without the knowledge or participation of Ms. Maxwell during the period charged amounts to direct evidence that the conspiratorial agreement or knowledge of the objectives likewise did not exist. Only after the government has made its opening statements and put on its evidence will the defense even know, much less be in a position to argue, what contrary evidence will be offered. As with the Court in Rivera, this Court should defer ruling on the admissibility of any such evidence until the time it is offered into evidence by the defense.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "53",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006478",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Matusumoto",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21",
      "Apr. 15, 2015"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 439",
      "13 Cr. 149 (KAM)",
      "2015 WL 1725991",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006478"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 61 of 69."
}