mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008398.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "549-1",
    "date": "12/17/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 4 of 24 16\n\n1 by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of\n2 Florida, (3) about the scope and timeline of investigation in\n3 New York, and (4) other evidence that demonstrates the\n4 government's motives for investigating Ms. Maxwell.\n5 The Court's analysis here is guided by four principles\n6 set by the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court.\n7 First, because the government has no duty to employ,\n8 in the course of a single investigation, any particular\n9 investigative technique, the failure to utilize some particular\n10 technique does not tend to show that a defendant is not guilty\n11 of the crime of which he's been charged and is therefore\n12 irrelevant. United States v. Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50, (2d\n13 Cir. 2000). That's the first legal principle that frames the\n14 discussion here.\n15 Second, arguments that the government had an improper\n16 motive generally must be directed to the Court rather than the\n17 jury. United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072, (2d Cir. 1997);\n18 see also, United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127 (2d Cir.\n19 2011).\n20 Third legal principle: There is no per se bar on\n21 admitting evidence of the government's charging decisions.\n22 Rather, the Court must -- I will quote here -- \"inquire into\n23 its relevance and probative value to the respective case.\"\n24 United States v. White, 692 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2012); see also,\n25 United States v. Ngono, 801 F.App'x. 19 (2d Cir. 2020).\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00008398",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 4 of 24 16",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, (3) about the scope and timeline of investigation in New York, and (4) other evidence that demonstrates the government's motives for investigating Ms. Maxwell. The Court's analysis here is guided by four principles set by the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court. First, because the government has no duty to employ, in the course of a single investigation, any particular investigative technique, the failure to utilize some particular technique does not tend to show that a defendant is not guilty of the crime of which he's been charged and is therefore irrelevant. United States v. Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50, (2d Cir. 2000). That's the first legal principle that frames the discussion here. Second, arguments that the government had an improper motive generally must be directed to the Court rather than the jury. United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072, (2d Cir. 1997); see also, United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2011). Third legal principle: There is no per se bar on admitting evidence of the government's charging decisions. Rather, the Court must -- I will quote here -- \"inquire into its relevance and probative value to the respective case.\" United States v. White, 692 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2012); see also, United States v. Ngono, 801 F.App'x. 19 (2d Cir. 2020).",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008398",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Attorney's Office",
      "Southern District Reporters, P.C.",
      "Supreme Court",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "12/17/21",
      "2000",
      "1997",
      "2011",
      "2012",
      "2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "549-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008398"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
}