mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008511.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "55",
    "document_number": "562",
    "date": "12/17/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 562 Filed 12/17/21 Page 55 of 82\n\n1\n2\nOTHER INSTRUCTIONS\n\n3\nInstruction No. 39: Conscious Avoidance\n\n4\nThis concludes my instructions on the crimes charged in the Indictment, but before I\n5\nmove onto my remaining instructions, I want to now instruct you on the concept of conscious\n6\navoidance.\n\n7\nAs I have explained, each of the counts charged in the Indictment requires the\n8\nGovernment to prove that the Defendant acted knowingly, as I have already defined that term.\n9\nIf a person is actually aware of a fact, then she knows that fact. But, in determining\n10\nwhether the Defendant acted knowingly, you may also consider whether the Defendant\n11\ndeliberately closed her eyes to what otherwise would have been obvious.\n12\nTo be clear, the necessary knowledge on the part of the Defendant with respect to any\n13\nparticular charge cannot be established by showing that the Defendant was careless, negligent, or\n14\nfoolish. However, one may not willfully and intentionally remain ignorant of a fact material and\n15\nimportant to her conduct in order to escape the consequences of criminal law. The law calls this\n16\n“conscious avoidance” or “willful blindness.”\n\n17\nAn argument by the Government of conscious avoidance is not a substitute for proof; it is\n18\nsimply another factor that you, the jury, may consider in deciding what the Defendant knew.\n19\nThus, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was aware that there was a high\n20\nprobability a crime was being committed, but that the Defendant deliberately and consciously\n21\navoided confirming this fact, such as by purposely closing her eyes to it or intentionally failing to\n22\ninvestigate it, then you may treat this deliberate avoidance of positive knowledge as the\n23\nequivalent of knowledge, unless you find that the Defendant actually believed that she was not\n24\nengaged in such unlawful behavior. In other words, a defendant cannot avoid criminal\n\n54\nDOJ-OGR-00008511",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 562 Filed 12/17/21 Page 55 of 82",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "OTHER INSTRUCTIONS\nInstruction No. 39: Conscious Avoidance",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This concludes my instructions on the crimes charged in the Indictment, but before I move onto my remaining instructions, I want to now instruct you on the concept of conscious avoidance.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As I have explained, each of the counts charged in the Indictment requires the Government to prove that the Defendant acted knowingly, as I have already defined that term.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "If a person is actually aware of a fact, then she knows that fact. But, in determining whether the Defendant acted knowingly, you may also consider whether the Defendant deliberately closed her eyes to what otherwise would have been obvious.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To be clear, the necessary knowledge on the part of the Defendant with respect to any particular charge cannot be established by showing that the Defendant was careless, negligent, or foolish. However, one may not willfully and intentionally remain ignorant of a fact material and important to her conduct in order to escape the consequences of criminal law. The law calls this “conscious avoidance” or “willful blindness.”",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "An argument by the Government of conscious avoidance is not a substitute for proof; it is simply another factor that you, the jury, may consider in deciding what the Defendant knew.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Thus, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was aware that there was a high probability a crime was being committed, but that the Defendant deliberately and consciously avoided confirming this fact, such as by purposely closing her eyes to it or intentionally failing to investigate it, then you may treat this deliberate avoidance of positive knowledge as the equivalent of knowledge, unless you find that the Defendant actually believed that she was not engaged in such unlawful behavior. In other words, a defendant cannot avoid criminal",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "54",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008511",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "12/17/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "562",
      "55",
      "82",
      "39",
      "54",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008511"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, specifically a jury instruction, with clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}