mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006954.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "456",
    "date": "11/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 456 Filed 11/12/21 Page 2 of 10\nPage 2\nEpstein to the Minor Victims or in their presence. In addition, the Government provided specific exemplars of statements falling within each of these four categories. The Government explained that it expected many of the statements falling within the four categories to be offered without use of Rule 801(d)(2)(E), but it included those statements in an abundance of caution.\nIn response, defense counsel indicated that they did not object to the first, third, and fourth categories so long as those proffered statements are limited to individuals identified as “minor victims” in the Second Superseding Indictment (the “Indictment”) or correspondence to defense counsel dated October 11, 2021, and so long as the statements were not made outside of the dates of the alleged conspiracies in the Indictment. The Government can confirm both that the proffered statements only relate to the victims identified either in the Indictment or in its October 11, 2021 letter to defense counsel, and that all such proffered statements occurred between in or about 1994 and in or about 2004. Accordingly, the Government understands there is no objection to the statements in those categories.\nAs to the second category, the defense indicated they object to the first two exemplars provided by the Government. The defense indicated that they do not object to the third exemplar in this category, so long as it relates to the time period alleged in the Indictment. The Government can confirm that the proffered statement in that exemplar occurred during the period alleged in the Indictment.\nAs a result, the parties appear to disagree about the admissibility of only two exemplars provided by the Government. In particular, those exemplars are as follows:\n- In or about 2005, Epstein told an employee witness (“Employee-1”), who was identified as a co-conspirator in the Government’s October 11, 2021 letter to the defense, that the defendant used to find girls for him.\n- In or about October 2005, Epstein and an employee (“Employee-2”), who was identified as a co-conspirator in the Government’s October 11, 2021 letter to",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 456 Filed 11/12/21 Page 2 of 10",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Epstein to the Minor Victims or in their presence. In addition, the Government provided specific exemplars of statements falling within each of these four categories. The Government explained that it expected many of the statements falling within the four categories to be offered without use of Rule 801(d)(2)(E), but it included those statements in an abundance of caution.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In response, defense counsel indicated that they did not object to the first, third, and fourth categories so long as those proffered statements are limited to individuals identified as “minor victims” in the Second Superseding Indictment (the “Indictment”) or correspondence to defense counsel dated October 11, 2021, and so long as the statements were not made outside of the dates of the alleged conspiracies in the Indictment. The Government can confirm both that the proffered statements only relate to the victims identified either in the Indictment or in its October 11, 2021 letter to defense counsel, and that all such proffered statements occurred between in or about 1994 and in or about 2004. Accordingly, the Government understands there is no objection to the statements in those categories.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As to the second category, the defense indicated they object to the first two exemplars provided by the Government. The defense indicated that they do not object to the third exemplar in this category, so long as it relates to the time period alleged in the Indictment. The Government can confirm that the proffered statement in that exemplar occurred during the period alleged in the Indictment.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As a result, the parties appear to disagree about the admissibility of only two exemplars provided by the Government. In particular, those exemplars are as follows:",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "- In or about 2005, Epstein told an employee witness (“Employee-1”), who was identified as a co-conspirator in the Government’s October 11, 2021 letter to the defense, that the defendant used to find girls for him.\n- In or about October 2005, Epstein and an employee (“Employee-2”), who was identified as a co-conspirator in the Government’s October 11, 2021 letter to",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006954",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Employee-1",
      "Employee-2",
      "defendant"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "October 11, 2021",
      "1994",
      "2004",
      "2005",
      "October 2005",
      "11/12/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 456"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text discusses the admissibility of certain statements and the objections raised by the defense counsel. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}