mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008794.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "566",
    "date": "12/28/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 566 Filed 12/28/21 Page 5 of 7\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 27, 2021\nPage 5\na curative instruction. Moreover, because the same issues arise with respect to the substantive enticement offense charged in Count Two, the Court must give the same instruction as to Count Two as well.1\nSupplemental Jury Instruction\nSecond, we believe that the Court's response to the jury note was substantively incorrect and prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. \"A jury's interruption of its deliberations 'to seek further explanation of the law' is a 'critical moment in a criminal trial'; and [the Second Circuit] therefore ascribe[s] 'crucial importance' to a 'completely accurate statement by the judge' at that moment.\" United States v. Kopstein, 759 F.3d 168, 172 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Lefkowitz, 284 F.2d 310, 314 (2d Cir. 1960)). \"Instructions are erroneous if they mislead the jury as to the correct legal standard or do not adequately inform the jury of the law.\" Hudson v. New York City, 271 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2001). Reversal is \"required where, based on a review of the record as a whole, the error was prejudicial or the charge was highly confusing.\" Kopstein, 759 F.3d at 172; see also id. (\"A charge that appears likely to have left the jury 'highly confused' may, on that ground alone, be reversed.\" (quoting Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. One 25,900 Square Foot More or Less Parcel of Land, 766 F.2d 685, 688 (2d Cir. 1985) (\"A charge that appears likely to have left the jury 'highly confused' may, on that ground alone, be reversed.\"))). \"Even if an initial\n1 The defense notes that the object of the conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three is a violation of the same New York statute. While we do not contest that alleged sexual activity that occurred in other states can be evidence of those conspiracies, the jury cannot convict Ms. Maxwell on those counts without finding that she acted with the intent that someone under the age of 17 would engage in sexual activity within the state of New York that violated New York law.\n2068538.1\nDOJ-OGR-00008794",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 566 Filed 12/28/21 Page 5 of 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 27, 2021\nPage 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "a curative instruction. Moreover, because the same issues arise with respect to the substantive enticement offense charged in Count Two, the Court must give the same instruction as to Count Two as well.1",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Supplemental Jury Instruction",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Second, we believe that the Court's response to the jury note was substantively incorrect and prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. \"A jury's interruption of its deliberations 'to seek further explanation of the law' is a 'critical moment in a criminal trial'; and [the Second Circuit] therefore ascribe[s] 'crucial importance' to a 'completely accurate statement by the judge' at that moment.\" United States v. Kopstein, 759 F.3d 168, 172 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Lefkowitz, 284 F.2d 310, 314 (2d Cir. 1960)). \"Instructions are erroneous if they mislead the jury as to the correct legal standard or do not adequately inform the jury of the law.\" Hudson v. New York City, 271 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2001). Reversal is \"required where, based on a review of the record as a whole, the error was prejudicial or the charge was highly confusing.\" Kopstein, 759 F.3d at 172; see also id. (\"A charge that appears likely to have left the jury 'highly confused' may, on that ground alone, be reversed.\" (quoting Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. One 25,900 Square Foot More or Less Parcel of Land, 766 F.2d 685, 688 (2d Cir. 1985) (\"A charge that appears likely to have left the jury 'highly confused' may, on that ground alone, be reversed.\"))). \"Even if an initial",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 The defense notes that the object of the conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three is a violation of the same New York statute. While we do not contest that alleged sexual activity that occurred in other states can be evidence of those conspiracies, the jury cannot convict Ms. Maxwell on those counts without finding that she acted with the intent that someone under the age of 17 would engage in sexual activity within the state of New York that violated New York law.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2068538.1\nDOJ-OGR-00008794",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "New York City"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "December 27, 2021",
      "12/28/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 566",
      "2068538.1",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008794"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with a footnote and some citations. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}