mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007423.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "492",
    "date": "11/22/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 492 Filed 11/22/21 Page 6 of 13\nPage 6\n—in the same time period, and in some of the same places.\nThe fact that Minor Victim-3 was above the age of consent in relevant jurisdictions has no bearing on this analysis. Lawful activity may still be relevant evidence of a crime. For instance, evidence that the defendant was Epstein's girlfriend is relevant and probative even if it is also lawful. In a fraud case, evidence that a defendant had significant debts is relevant and probative even if those debts involved no illegal activity. Even the overt act requirement of a conspiracy can be satisfied with proof of innocent conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Abdullaev, 761 F. App'x 78, 84 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order). This evidence is no different. Epstein's prurient interest in girls did not end when the clock struck midnight on their 17th birthday. The fact that the defendant helped him abuse a 17-year-old is direct evidence of the manner in which she conspired with him to abuse other young women as well, some of whom were in fact below the age of consent. Minor Victim-3's testimony is thus intertwined with the conspiracies charged in the case, probative of contested issues at trial, and no more sensational than the charged conduct. It is therefore admissible. Even if it is lawful when evaluated purely in isolation, it is still direct evidence.\nEvidence related to Minor Victim-3 is also direct evidence of the sex trafficking counts in the Indictment. It is direct evidence for similar reasons as for the Mann Act counts: it speaks directly to the defendant's role in the conspiracy, her reasons for participating in it, and the conspiracy's operation. But it is also relevant for the additional reason that it demonstrates the reasons for a co-conspirator's participation in the conspiracy, which is also a central issue at this trial. Specifically, it shows that minors who gave sexualized massages to Epstein were compensated, and that Epstein was sexually attracted to girls of a certain age, typically under the age of eighteen. The former is evidence that the defendant and Epstein recruited and enticed girls\nDOJ-OGR-00007423",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 492 Filed 11/22/21 Page 6 of 13",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "—in the same time period, and in some of the same places.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The fact that Minor Victim-3 was above the age of consent in relevant jurisdictions has no bearing on this analysis. Lawful activity may still be relevant evidence of a crime. For instance, evidence that the defendant was Epstein's girlfriend is relevant and probative even if it is also lawful. In a fraud case, evidence that a defendant had significant debts is relevant and probative even if those debts involved no illegal activity. Even the overt act requirement of a conspiracy can be satisfied with proof of innocent conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Abdullaev, 761 F. App'x 78, 84 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order). This evidence is no different. Epstein's prurient interest in girls did not end when the clock struck midnight on their 17th birthday. The fact that the defendant helped him abuse a 17-year-old is direct evidence of the manner in which she conspired with him to abuse other young women as well, some of whom were in fact below the age of consent. Minor Victim-3's testimony is thus intertwined with the conspiracies charged in the case, probative of contested issues at trial, and no more sensational than the charged conduct. It is therefore admissible. Even if it is lawful when evaluated purely in isolation, it is still direct evidence.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Evidence related to Minor Victim-3 is also direct evidence of the sex trafficking counts in the Indictment. It is direct evidence for similar reasons as for the Mann Act counts: it speaks directly to the defendant's role in the conspiracy, her reasons for participating in it, and the conspiracy's operation. But it is also relevant for the additional reason that it demonstrates the reasons for a co-conspirator's participation in the conspiracy, which is also a central issue at this trial. Specifically, it shows that minors who gave sexualized massages to Epstein were compensated, and that Epstein was sexually attracted to girls of a certain age, typically under the age of eighteen. The former is evidence that the defendant and Epstein recruited and enticed girls",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007423",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Minor Victim-3",
      "Epstein",
      "Abdullaev"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/22/21",
      "2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 492",
      "761 F. App'x 78, 84 (2d Cir. 2019)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007423"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a sex trafficking case involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text discusses the admissibility of evidence related to Minor Victim-3 and its relevance to the charges against the defendant. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}