mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00007074.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "23",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 23 of 127 23 LB1TMAX1 is the relevant basis for the jury's determination of guilt or innocence. Why and when the government conducted the investigation is not relevant. If the defense believes the government has a legally improper motive for prosecuting Ms. Maxwell or somehow fabricating evidence or suborning perjury or the like, the Second Circuit has made clear that the proper remedy is to file a motion for the Court to consider. See, Regan, 103 F.3d 1082. Absent that, the law is clear that for purposes of the jury, \"the government is not on trial.\" United States v. Knox, 687 F.App'x 51, (2d Cir. 2017). Moreover, evidence of motive would be highly prejudicial. For the reasons I explained a moment ago, it would confuse jurors as to the proper standard of guilt to be applied in the case. Indeed, the defense's outlined evidence of improper motives is strongly suggestive of jury nullification because it suggests a vindictive or political prosecution which is rightly a matter reserved to the Court. Calling witnesses to testify to the government's motive would substantially expand the scope of trial, rely likely on hearsay and other inadmissible evidence. So what motivated a particular investigative step or charging decision of course doesn't have a black or white answer, and the defense would have one story and the government another, neither of which would assist of the jury in deciding Ms. Maxwell's guilt or innocence of the charges here based on of the government's SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00007074",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 23 of 127 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "LB1TMAX1 is the relevant basis for the jury's determination of guilt or innocence. Why and when the government conducted the investigation is not relevant. If the defense believes the government has a legally improper motive for prosecuting Ms. Maxwell or somehow fabricating evidence or suborning perjury or the like, the Second Circuit has made clear that the proper remedy is to file a motion for the Court to consider. See, Regan, 103 F.3d 1082. Absent that, the law is clear that for purposes of the jury, \"the government is not on trial.\" United States v. Knox, 687 F.App'x 51, (2d Cir. 2017). Moreover, evidence of motive would be highly prejudicial. For the reasons I explained a moment ago, it would confuse jurors as to the proper standard of guilt to be applied in the case. Indeed, the defense's outlined evidence of improper motives is strongly suggestive of jury nullification because it suggests a vindictive or political prosecution which is rightly a matter reserved to the Court. Calling witnesses to testify to the government's motive would substantially expand the scope of trial, rely likely on hearsay and other inadmissible evidence. So what motivated a particular investigative step or charging decision of course doesn't have a black or white answer, and the defense would have one story and the government another, neither of which would assist of the jury in deciding Ms. Maxwell's guilt or innocence of the charges here based on of the government's",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007074",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "Court",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21",
      "2017"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 465",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007074"
    ]
  },
  "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 handwritten notes or stamps. The document includes citations to legal cases and references to court proceedings."
}