mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006958.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "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 6 of 10\nPage 6\n1. First Exemplar\nThe first exemplar to which the defense objects involved a statement Epstein made to Employee-1 in order to provide background information and history about an ongoing sex trafficking conspiracy. Specifically, Epstein informed Employee-1, in sum and substance, that the defendant used to find girls for Epstein. The Government expects that Employee-1 will testify that at the time Epstein made this statement, Employee-1 was a participant in a conspiracy to sex traffic minors for Epstein. In particular, Employee-1 will testify that in 2005, Epstein was still receiving paid sexualized massages from minor girls, which his employees facilitated. As part of that conspiracy, Employee-1 made phone calls to schedule girls, whom Employee-1 knew to be underage, to provide Epstein with massages, which Employee-1 knew would involve sex acts in exchange for money. Although Minor Victim-4 had already turned 18 in 2005, Employee-1 will testify that Epstein and his employees continued to arrange for other minor girls to provide the paid sexualized massages.\nIn other words, although the time period for the sex trafficking conspiracy charged in the Indictment ends in 2004, the same sex trafficking conspiracy continued beyond that time. Further, the defendant cannot be presumed to have withdrawn from the conspiracy simply because the conspiracy charged in the Indictment ends in 2004. See Diaz, 176 F.3d at 98 (\"Unless a conspirator produces affirmative evidence of withdrawal, his participation in a conspiracy is presumed to continue until the last overt act by any of the conspirators.\") (quoting United States v. Greenfield, 44 F.3d 1141, 1150 (2d Cir. 1995)). The defendant therefore remained in a sex trafficking conspiracy with Epstein in 2005. And for purposes of analysis under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), it is irrelevant that the Indictment includes a timespan that ends in 2004 because \"[t]he conspiracy between the declarant and the defendant need not be identical to any conspiracy\"\nDOJ-OGR-00006958",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 456 Filed 11/12/21 Page 6 of 10",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. First Exemplar",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The first exemplar to which the defense objects involved a statement Epstein made to Employee-1 in order to provide background information and history about an ongoing sex trafficking conspiracy. Specifically, Epstein informed Employee-1, in sum and substance, that the defendant used to find girls for Epstein. The Government expects that Employee-1 will testify that at the time Epstein made this statement, Employee-1 was a participant in a conspiracy to sex traffic minors for Epstein. In particular, Employee-1 will testify that in 2005, Epstein was still receiving paid sexualized massages from minor girls, which his employees facilitated. As part of that conspiracy, Employee-1 made phone calls to schedule girls, whom Employee-1 knew to be underage, to provide Epstein with massages, which Employee-1 knew would involve sex acts in exchange for money. Although Minor Victim-4 had already turned 18 in 2005, Employee-1 will testify that Epstein and his employees continued to arrange for other minor girls to provide the paid sexualized massages.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In other words, although the time period for the sex trafficking conspiracy charged in the Indictment ends in 2004, the same sex trafficking conspiracy continued beyond that time. Further, the defendant cannot be presumed to have withdrawn from the conspiracy simply because the conspiracy charged in the Indictment ends in 2004. See Diaz, 176 F.3d at 98 (\"Unless a conspirator produces affirmative evidence of withdrawal, his participation in a conspiracy is presumed to continue until the last overt act by any of the conspirators.\") (quoting United States v. Greenfield, 44 F.3d 1141, 1150 (2d Cir. 1995)). The defendant therefore remained in a sex trafficking conspiracy with Epstein in 2005. And for purposes of analysis under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), it is irrelevant that the Indictment includes a timespan that ends in 2004 because \"[t]he conspiracy between the declarant and the defendant need not be identical to any conspiracy\"",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006958",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Employee-1",
      "Minor Victim-4",
      "Diaz",
      "Greenfield"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/12/21",
      "2004",
      "2005",
      "1995"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 456",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006958"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a sex trafficking case involving Epstein. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 6 of a 10-page document."
}