mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008765.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "59",
    "document_number": "565",
    "date": "12/19/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 565 Filed 12/19/21 Page 59 of 83\n1\nInstruction No. 42: Direct and Circumstantial Evidence\n2\nI turn now to some general instructions. There are two types of evidence that you may\n3\nuse in reaching your verdict. One type of evidence is direct evidence. One kind of direct\n4\nevidence is a witness's testimony about something that the witness knows by virtue of his or her\n5\nown senses—something that the witness has seen, smelled, touched, or heard. Direct evidence\n6\nmay also be in the form of an exhibit.\n7\nThe other type of evidence is circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is\n8\nevidence that tends to prove one fact by proof of other facts. There is a simple example of\n9\ncircumstantial evidence that is often used in this courthouse.\n10\nAssume that when you came into the courthouse this morning the sun was shining and it\n11\nwas a nice day. Assume that there are blinds on the courtroom windows that are drawn and that\n12\nyou cannot look outside. As you are sitting here, someone walks in with an umbrella that is\n13\ndripping wet. Someone else then walks in with a raincoat that is also dripping wet.\n14\nNow, you cannot look outside the courtroom and you cannot see whether or not it is\n15\nraining. So you have no direct evidence of that fact. But on the combination of the facts that I\n16\nhave asked you to assume, it would be reasonable and logical for you to conclude that between\n17\nthe time you arrived at the courthouse and the time these people walked in, it had started to rain.\n18\nThat is all there is to circumstantial evidence. You infer based on reason, experience, and\n19\ncommon sense from an established fact the existence or the nonexistence of some other fact.\n20\nMany facts, such as a person's state of mind, can only rarely be proved by direct\n21\nevidence. Circumstantial evidence is of no less value than direct evidence. It is a general rule\n22\nthat the law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence, but simply requires\n23\nthat, before convicting Ms. Maxwell, you, the jury, must be satisfied of her guilt beyond a\n24\nreasonable doubt from all the evidence in the case.\n58\nDOJ-OGR-00008765",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 565 Filed 12/19/21 Page 59 of 83",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Instruction No. 42: Direct and Circumstantial Evidence",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1\nI turn now to some general instructions. There are two types of evidence that you may\nuse in reaching your verdict. One type of evidence is direct evidence. One kind of direct\nevidence is a witness's testimony about something that the witness knows by virtue of his or her\nown senses—something that the witness has seen, smelled, touched, or heard. Direct evidence\nmay also be in the form of an exhibit.\nThe other type of evidence is circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is\nevidence that tends to prove one fact by proof of other facts. There is a simple example of\ncircumstantial evidence that is often used in this courthouse.\nAssume that when you came into the courthouse this morning the sun was shining and it\nwas a nice day. Assume that there are blinds on the courtroom windows that are drawn and that\nyou cannot look outside. As you are sitting here, someone walks in with an umbrella that is\ndripping wet. Someone else then walks in with a raincoat that is also dripping wet.\nNow, you cannot look outside the courtroom and you cannot see whether or not it is\nraining. So you have no direct evidence of that fact. But on the combination of the facts that I\nhave asked you to assume, it would be reasonable and logical for you to conclude that between\nthe time you arrived at the courthouse and the time these people walked in, it had started to rain.\nThat is all there is to circumstantial evidence. You infer based on reason, experience, and\ncommon sense from an established fact the existence or the nonexistence of some other fact.\nMany facts, such as a person's state of mind, can only rarely be proved by direct\nevidence. Circumstantial evidence is of no less value than direct evidence. It is a general rule\nthat the law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence, but simply requires\nthat, before convicting Ms. Maxwell, you, the jury, must be satisfied of her guilt beyond a\nreasonable doubt from all the evidence in the case.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "58",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008765",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "courthouse",
      "courtroom"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "12/19/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 565",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008765"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court instruction related to direct and circumstantial evidence in a legal case involving Ms. Maxwell. The document is well-formatted and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
}