mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008592.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "54",
    "document_number": "563",
    "date": "12/18/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 563 Filed 12/18/21 Page 54 of 167\n1 Express from an address in Manhattan to Carolyn in Florida; (4) On multiple occasions between\n2 in or about 2001 and in or about 2004, Epstein, Maxwell, or one of Epstein's other employees\n3 called Carolyn to schedule an appointment for Carolyn to massage Epstein. For example, in or\n4 about April of 2004 and May of 2004 another employee of Epstein's called Carolyn to schedule\n5 such appointments.\n6 In order for the Government to satisfy this element, it is not necessary for the\n7 Government to prove that Ms. Maxwell committed the overt act. It is sufficient for the\n8 Government to show that any of the members of the conspiracy knowingly committed some\n9 overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Further, the overt act need not be one that is alleged in\n10 the Indictment. Rather, it can be any overt act that is substantially similar to those acts alleged in\n11 the Indictment, if you are convinced that the act occurred while the conspiracy was still in\n12 existence and that it was done in furtherance of the conspiracy as described in the Indictment. In\n13 addition, you need not be unanimous as to which overt act you find to have been committed. It\n14 is sufficient as long as all of you find that at least one overt act was committed by one of the\n15 conspirators.\n16 As to Counts One and Three, the Government has to prove that at least one of the overt\n17 acts in furtherance of that conspiracy involved a witness other than Kate. Put simply: you may\n18 not convict the Defendant Ms. Maxwell on Counts One or Three solely on the basis of Kate's\n19 testimony or an overt act involving Kate.\n20 You are further instructed that the overt act need not have been committed at precisely\n21 the time alleged in the Indictment. It is sufficient if you are convinced beyond a reasonable\n22 doubt, that it occurred at or about the time and place stated.\n23\n53\nDOJ-OGR-00008592",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 563 Filed 12/18/21 Page 54 of 167",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Express from an address in Manhattan to Carolyn in Florida; (4) On multiple occasions between\n2 in or about 2001 and in or about 2004, Epstein, Maxwell, or one of Epstein's other employees\n3 called Carolyn to schedule an appointment for Carolyn to massage Epstein. For example, in or\n4 about April of 2004 and May of 2004 another employee of Epstein's called Carolyn to schedule\n5 such appointments.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6 In order for the Government to satisfy this element, it is not necessary for the\n7 Government to prove that Ms. Maxwell committed the overt act. It is sufficient for the\n8 Government to show that any of the members of the conspiracy knowingly committed some\n9 overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Further, the overt act need not be one that is alleged in\n10 the Indictment. Rather, it can be any overt act that is substantially similar to those acts alleged in\n11 the Indictment, if you are convinced that the act occurred while the conspiracy was still in\n12 existence and that it was done in furtherance of the conspiracy as described in the Indictment. In\n13 addition, you need not be unanimous as to which overt act you find to have been committed. It\n14 is sufficient as long as all of you find that at least one overt act was committed by one of the\n15 conspirators.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "16 As to Counts One and Three, the Government has to prove that at least one of the overt\n17 acts in furtherance of that conspiracy involved a witness other than Kate. Put simply: you may\n18 not convict the Defendant Ms. Maxwell on Counts One or Three solely on the basis of Kate's\n19 testimony or an overt act involving Kate.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "20 You are further instructed that the overt act need not have been committed at precisely\n21 the time alleged in the Indictment. It is sufficient if you are convinced beyond a reasonable\n22 doubt, that it occurred at or about the time and place stated.\n23",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "53",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008592",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Carolyn",
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Kate"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Manhattan",
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2001",
      "2004",
      "April 2004",
      "May 2004",
      "12/18/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 563",
      "Page 54 of 167",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008592"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or jury instruction related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text is printed and legible, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
}