mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008409.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "15",
    "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 15 of 24 27 LB1TMAX1 to the jury's decision now, which is whether there is evidence of Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as the government will put its case to the jury. Now there is a difference between admitting a witness' prior statements for impeachment purposes, which is protected by the confrontation clause, and admitting prior charging decisions. In a case analogous to this one on this issue, United States v. Borrero, another district court judge held that a defendant could permissibly cross-examine a witness about their prior statement to law enforcement in which they accused a different individual of the crime for which the defendant was later charged. 2013 WL 6020773 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). That case docket is 13 CR 58. But the court there did not admit the charging decision that the early investigation had ended in a nolle, because it would confuse jurors, require extended factual disputes, and was, at best, cumulative of the witness's statement. As I have explained, the same would appear to be true here. Fifth piece of guidance: In contrast to what I indicated may not come in, the Court will permit relevant cross-examination of the government's witnesses. Defense seeks to impeach the credibility of some witnesses by admitting those witnesses' prior statements to the government that purportedly did not implicate Ms. Maxwell. This use of cross-examination to impeach a witness that has allegedly changed her story to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00008409",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 549-1 Filed 12/17/21 Page 15 of 24 27 LB1TMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "to the jury's decision now, which is whether there is evidence of Ms. Maxwell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as the government will put its case to the jury. Now there is a difference between admitting a witness' prior statements for impeachment purposes, which is protected by the confrontation clause, and admitting prior charging decisions. In a case analogous to this one on this issue, United States v. Borrero, another district court judge held that a defendant could permissibly cross-examine a witness about their prior statement to law enforcement in which they accused a different individual of the crime for which the defendant was later charged. 2013 WL 6020773 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). That case docket is 13 CR 58. But the court there did not admit the charging decision that the early investigation had ended in a nolle, because it would confuse jurors, require extended factual disputes, and was, at best, cumulative of the witness's statement. As I have explained, the same would appear to be true here. Fifth piece of guidance: In contrast to what I indicated may not come in, the Court will permit relevant cross-examination of the government's witnesses. Defense seeks to impeach the credibility of some witnesses by admitting those witnesses' prior statements to the government that purportedly did not implicate Ms. Maxwell. This use of cross-examination to impeach a witness that has allegedly changed her story to",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008409",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "12/17/21",
      "2013"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "549-1",
      "13 CR 58",
      "2013 WL 6020773",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008409"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is from the Southern District of New York."
}