mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008406.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "12",
    "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 12 of 24 24\n\n1 ability to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.\n2 Third piece of guidance: The Court will exclude from\n3 evidence the non-prosecution agreement, both its existence and\n4 its particular terms. The defense argues the NPA is relevant\n5 to the bias and financial interest of two witnesses. One\n6 anticipated witness received immunity from criminal prosecution\n7 under the NPA. Additionally, under the NPA, Epstein agreed to\n8 pay for a lawyer for an alleged victim who was anticipated to\n9 testify and agreed not to contest her civil suit against him.\n10 The civil suit ended in a settlement with respect to an alleged\n11 victim.\n12 Of course, defendants are always able to cross-examine\n13 witnesses about relevant bias. For example, cross-examination\n14 about civil litigation or civil claims against Epstein or\n15 others and related financial incentive are fair grounds.\n16 Moreover, cooperating witnesses are commonly cross-examined\n17 about how testimony may affect the sentence that they receive.\n18 And if it were the case that any witness were to receive\n19 testimonial immunity in this case, the defense may\n20 cross-examine about that. But the defense has not explained\n21 any bias or incentive to fabricate that results from or relates\n22 to the NPA. Regardless of how the witness covered by the NPA\n23 might testify, that witness will remain protected under the NPA\n24 in the Southern District of Florida, and as I already ruled,\n25 the NPA does not provide protection in the Southern District of\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00008406",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 12 of 24 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 ability to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.\n2 Third piece of guidance: The Court will exclude from\n3 evidence the non-prosecution agreement, both its existence and\n4 its particular terms. The defense argues the NPA is relevant\n5 to the bias and financial interest of two witnesses. One\n6 anticipated witness received immunity from criminal prosecution\n7 under the NPA. Additionally, under the NPA, Epstein agreed to\n8 pay for a lawyer for an alleged victim who was anticipated to\n9 testify and agreed not to contest her civil suit against him.\n10 The civil suit ended in a settlement with respect to an alleged\n11 victim.\n12 Of course, defendants are always able to cross-examine\n13 witnesses about relevant bias. For example, cross-examination\n14 about civil litigation or civil claims against Epstein or\n15 others and related financial incentive are fair grounds.\n16 Moreover, cooperating witnesses are commonly cross-examined\n17 about how testimony may affect the sentence that they receive.\n18 And if it were the case that any witness were to receive\n19 testimonial immunity in this case, the defense may\n20 cross-examine about that. But the defense has not explained\n21 any bias or incentive to fabricate that results from or relates\n22 to the NPA. Regardless of how the witness covered by the NPA\n23 might testify, that witness will remain protected under the NPA\n24 in the Southern District of Florida, and as I already ruled,\n25 the NPA does not provide protection in the Southern District of",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008406",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of Florida",
      "Southern District"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "12/17/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "549-1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008406"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. It is typed and contains legal terminology and references to specific court cases and procedures. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}