mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006555.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "39 of 40",
    "document_number": "440",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page 39 of 40\ninflammatory and prejudicial statement or questions by the defense. The Court should not indulge the defense's effort to get these inflammatory arguments in front of the jury before the Court can rule on this issue.\nI. The Court Should Not Allow the Defense to Suggest to the Jury That The Defendant Prevailed Against the Minor Victims in Litigation\nThe fact that the defendant “prevailed” in litigation, for purposes of awarding a small amount of costs, is irrelevant. That litigation resolved through a voluntary dismissal in connection with a settlement. To be sure, the defendant is a prevailing party as part of the cost-shifting statute, and so her current counsel sought a total of , presumably in part for the purpose of making this improper argument at trial. (See Def. Opp. at 57-59). But any suggestion that the defendant “prevailed” can only confuse the jury into thinking that the Court adjudicated the substance of claims in the defendant’s favor. That never occurred. If the defense is permitted to elicit this testimony, the Government will need to explain the relevant legal principles to the jury, showing them that—contrary to the defendant’s position—to a lay person, this is a technicality, and the litigation terminated with a settlement. (See id. at 58). Even if there were marginal probative value in a civil case, it would deeply confuse the jury to suggest that the defendant prevailed substantively, and would require a mini-trial on the meaning of a prevailing party in civil litigation. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.\nCONCLUSION\nThe defense would make this trial about many things it is not: the Florida investigation, various civil lawsuits, the media, and the Government’s alleged motives, among others. None of this bears on the factual question that the jury must decide. The Government asks the Court to\n38\nDOJ-OGR-00006555",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 440 Filed 11/12/21 Page 39 of 40",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "inflammatory and prejudicial statement or questions by the defense. The Court should not indulge the defense's effort to get these inflammatory arguments in front of the jury before the Court can rule on this issue.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. The Court Should Not Allow the Defense to Suggest to the Jury That The Defendant Prevailed Against the Minor Victims in Litigation",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The fact that the defendant “prevailed” in litigation, for purposes of awarding a small amount of costs, is irrelevant. That litigation resolved through a voluntary dismissal in connection with a settlement. To be sure, the defendant is a prevailing party as part of the cost-shifting statute, and so her current counsel sought a total of , presumably in part for the purpose of making this improper argument at trial. (See Def. Opp. at 57-59). But any suggestion that the defendant “prevailed” can only confuse the jury into thinking that the Court adjudicated the substance of claims in the defendant’s favor. That never occurred. If the defense is permitted to elicit this testimony, the Government will need to explain the relevant legal principles to the jury, showing them that—contrary to the defendant’s position—to a lay person, this is a technicality, and the litigation terminated with a settlement. (See id. at 58). Even if there were marginal probative value in a civil case, it would deeply confuse the jury to suggest that the defendant prevailed substantively, and would require a mini-trial on the meaning of a prevailing party in civil litigation. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CONCLUSION",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defense would make this trial about many things it is not: the Florida investigation, various civil lawsuits, the media, and the Government’s alleged motives, among others. None of this bears on the factual question that the jury must decide. The Government asks the Court to",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "38",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006555",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 440",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006555"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear structure and formatting. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}