mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008403.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "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 9 of 24 21 LB1TMAX1\n\nThe defense also seeks to elicit evidence of the public outcry and scrutiny that preceded the decision to charge the defendant. The defense refers to public statements made by assistant United States attorneys -- not those appearing in the case -- to suggest that Ms. Maxwell was charged for improper reasons.\n\nThe Court finds that this specific proffered evidence is irrelevant to the charged conduct and, therefore, inadmissible.\n\nTo the extent that the defense's affirmative evidence in this regard would have some marginal probative value, it is substantially outweighed by 403 prejudice. See, for example, United States v. Hill, 12 CR 214, 2014 WL 198813 (E.D.N.Y. 2014), affirmed by the Second Circuit, 658 Fed. Appx. 600.\n\nHere's the reason for that 403 analysis:\n\nFirst, investigative details are likely to confuse the jury about the proper standard for determining Ms. Maxwell's guilt by suggesting that the government's choices of investigative techniques are relevant to whether guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, I will instruct jurors, as is standard, to the effect that the government is not on trial. And that standard charge can be found in many cases. Admitting testimony on the investigation would confuse the jury once it's received that instruction.\n\nSecond, these lines of argument are likely to\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00008403",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 9 of 24 21 LB1TMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defense also seeks to elicit evidence of the public outcry and scrutiny that preceded the decision to charge the defendant. The defense refers to public statements made by assistant United States attorneys -- not those appearing in the case -- to suggest that Ms. Maxwell was charged for improper reasons.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court finds that this specific proffered evidence is irrelevant to the charged conduct and, therefore, inadmissible.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To the extent that the defense's affirmative evidence in this regard would have some marginal probative value, it is substantially outweighed by 403 prejudice. See, for example, United States v. Hill, 12 CR 214, 2014 WL 198813 (E.D.N.Y. 2014), affirmed by the Second Circuit, 658 Fed. Appx. 600.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here's the reason for that 403 analysis:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, investigative details are likely to confuse the jury about the proper standard for determining Ms. Maxwell's guilt by suggesting that the government's choices of investigative techniques are relevant to whether guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, I will instruct jurors, as is standard, to the effect that the government is not on trial. And that standard charge can be found in many cases. Admitting testimony on the investigation would confuse the jury once it's received that instruction.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, these lines of argument are likely to",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008403",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "Second Circuit",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "12/17/21",
      "2014"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "549-1",
      "12 CR 214",
      "658 Fed. Appx. 600",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008403"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}