mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006960.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "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 8 of 10\nPage 8\none coconspirator identifying another is in furtherance of conspiracy). Accordingly, this statement is admissible as a co-conspirator statement under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).\nThis statement is also directly relevant to the charges in the Indictment. Although Epstein made the statement in 2005, he was discussing a time in the past when the defendant found girls for him. In other words, this statement references conduct that took place during the period charged in the Indictment. Epstein was telling Employee-1 that the defendant took precisely the actions alleged in the Indictment by recruiting girls for Epstein.\n2. Second Exemplar\nThe second exemplar involves instructions provided to Employee-1 by Epstein and Employee-2, who was also a co-conspirator. In particular, Employee-1 was instructed to go to Epstein's Palm Beach residence in October of 2005 and help someone who was coming to remove computers from the house.\nThis exemplar is a case in which the Government expects to offer the statement without use of Rule 801(d)(2)(E). The instructions are not hearsay because the Government will not offer them for their truth. Rather, these statements are offered to demonstrate their impact on the listener—Employee-1—in order to explain why Employee-1 removed computers from Epstein's Palm Beach house in October of 2005. As a result, the proffered statement is not hearsay. Dupree, 706 F.3d at 136 (\"[A] statement offered to show its effect on the listener is not hearsay.\")\nAlthough this event post-dated the time period contained in the Indictment, it explains why the members of the Palm Beach Police Department found that computer hard drives appeared to be missing from Epstein's Palm Beach residence when they executed a search warrant there on October 20, 2005. In particular, the Government expects a member of the search team to testify that during the search, he observed computer monitors and keyboards without any hard drives\nDOJ-OGR-00006960",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 456 Filed 11/12/21 Page 8 of 10",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "one coconspirator identifying another is in furtherance of conspiracy). Accordingly, this statement is admissible as a co-conspirator statement under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).\nThis statement is also directly relevant to the charges in the Indictment. Although Epstein made the statement in 2005, he was discussing a time in the past when the defendant found girls for him. In other words, this statement references conduct that took place during the period charged in the Indictment. Epstein was telling Employee-1 that the defendant took precisely the actions alleged in the Indictment by recruiting girls for Epstein.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. Second Exemplar",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The second exemplar involves instructions provided to Employee-1 by Epstein and Employee-2, who was also a co-conspirator. In particular, Employee-1 was instructed to go to Epstein's Palm Beach residence in October of 2005 and help someone who was coming to remove computers from the house.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This exemplar is a case in which the Government expects to offer the statement without use of Rule 801(d)(2)(E). The instructions are not hearsay because the Government will not offer them for their truth. Rather, these statements are offered to demonstrate their impact on the listener—Employee-1—in order to explain why Employee-1 removed computers from Epstein's Palm Beach house in October of 2005. As a result, the proffered statement is not hearsay. Dupree, 706 F.3d at 136 (\"[A] statement offered to show its effect on the listener is not hearsay.\")",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although this event post-dated the time period contained in the Indictment, it explains why the members of the Palm Beach Police Department found that computer hard drives appeared to be missing from Epstein's Palm Beach residence when they executed a search warrant there on October 20, 2005. In particular, the Government expects a member of the search team to testify that during the search, he observed computer monitors and keyboards without any hard drives",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00006960",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Employee-1",
      "Employee-2",
      "Dupree"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Palm Beach Police Department"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Palm Beach"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2005",
      "October 20, 2005",
      "11/12/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 456",
      "706 F.3d at 136",
      "DOJ-OGR-00006960"
    ]
  },
  "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 as evidence and references specific events and individuals involved in the case."
}