mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007077.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "26",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 26 of 127 26 LB1TMAX1 admissible under the usual rules of relevance. In White, the court determined that a prior charging decision was admissible because it bore directly on the credibility of a witness that testified at the defendant's trial. As currently proffered by the defense, the rationale doesn't apply here. For example, according to the defense, an alleged victim's statement to the FBI previously did not implicate or exculpate Ms. Maxwell, but her statement today does implicate her. On the basis of that statement, and assumedly other evidence available to them and a host of reasons, officials in the Southern District of Florida decided to not indict Ms. Maxwell at that time. That charging decision could be understood as a determination that in 2008 the government lacked sufficient evidence of Ms. Maxwell's guilt, but the decision not to charge -- or it could mean any number of a host of reasons, but the decision not to charge has little probative value that the Court can see as to this case. Charging decisions, as I said, are made for a host of reasons. Trying to sort through those reasons would be prejudicial pursuant to 403 both because they would require significant time to explore and because juror confusion would be likely. Any consideration of the government's decisions would also likely rely on hearsay or other inadmissible evidence. More importantly, unlike in White, those officials' assessments of the evidence in Florida in 2008 is not relevant SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007077",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 26 of 127 26 LB1TMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "admissible under the usual rules of relevance. In White, the court determined that a prior charging decision was admissible because it bore directly on the credibility of a witness that testified at the defendant's trial. As currently proffered by the defense, the rationale doesn't apply here. For example, according to the defense, an alleged victim's statement to the FBI previously did not implicate or exculpate Ms. Maxwell, but her statement today does implicate her. On the basis of that statement, and assumedly other evidence available to them and a host of reasons, officials in the Southern District of Florida decided to not indict Ms. Maxwell at that time. That charging decision could be understood as a determination that in 2008 the government lacked sufficient evidence of Ms. Maxwell's guilt, but the decision not to charge -- or it could mean any number of a host of reasons, but the decision not to charge has little probative value that the Court can see as to this case. Charging decisions, as I said, are made for a host of reasons. Trying to sort through those reasons would be prejudicial pursuant to 403 both because they would require significant time to explore and because juror confusion would be likely. Any consideration of the government's decisions would also likely rely on hearsay or other inadmissible evidence. More importantly, unlike in White, those officials' assessments of the evidence in Florida in 2008 is not relevant",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007077",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida",
      "Southern District of Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21",
      "2008"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007077"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is typed, and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document includes a case number, document number, and page number in the header."
}