mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011365.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "723",
    "date": "07/12/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 13\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 16, 2021\nPage 3\ntestimony are tested.\" Davis, 415 U.S. at 316. The importance of cross-examination cannot be overstated where, as here, the government's proof depends almost entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of the accusers. Pooventud v. City of New York, No. 07 CIV. 3998 DAB, 2015 WL 1062186, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2015) (\"Second Circuit case law . . . clearly establishes that impeachment evidence constitutes exculpatory evidence that must be disclosed. The disclosure of impeachment evidence, where 'the [g]overnment's case depended almost entirely on [the victim's] testimony,' goes to the heart of Brady and Giglio.\" (quoting Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154–55 (1972))).\nThe standard for relevance is \"very low,\" United States v. White, 692 F.3d 235, 246 (2d Cir. 2012) (explaining that Rule 401 prescribes a \"very low standard\"), and the definition of relevance is \"very broad,\" United States v. Certified Envtl. Servs., Inc., 753 F.3d 72, 90 (2d Cir. 2014). \"Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.\" Fed. R. Evid. 401. \"To be relevant, evidence need not be sufficient by itself to prove a fact in issue. . . .\" United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 132 (2d Cir. 2010). \"[U]nless an exception applies, all 'relevant evidence is admissible.'\" White, 692 F.3d at 246.\nThe testimony of Eva, Michelle, and Kelly, is relevant, because it makes it less likely that Jane engaged with sexualized massages with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. During her testimony, Jane claimed that Eva, Michelle, and Kelly were all involved in or could confirm the sexualized massages involving Jane, Mr. Epstein, and Ms. Maxwell. Eva, Michelle, and Kelly are going to testify that they were not involved in sexualized massages and cannot \"confirm\" Jane's story. The testimony of Eva, Michelle, and Kelly is relevant because it makes it less likely\nDOJ-OGR-00011365",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 13",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 16, 2021\nPage 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "testimony are tested.\" Davis, 415 U.S. at 316. The importance of cross-examination cannot be overstated where, as here, the government's proof depends almost entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of the accusers. Pooventud v. City of New York, No. 07 CIV. 3998 DAB, 2015 WL 1062186, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2015) (\"Second Circuit case law . . . clearly establishes that impeachment evidence constitutes exculpatory evidence that must be disclosed. The disclosure of impeachment evidence, where 'the [g]overnment's case depended almost entirely on [the victim's] testimony,' goes to the heart of Brady and Giglio.\" (quoting Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154–55 (1972))).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The standard for relevance is \"very low,\" United States v. White, 692 F.3d 235, 246 (2d Cir. 2012) (explaining that Rule 401 prescribes a \"very low standard\"), and the definition of relevance is \"very broad,\" United States v. Certified Envtl. Servs., Inc., 753 F.3d 72, 90 (2d Cir. 2014). \"Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.\" Fed. R. Evid. 401. \"To be relevant, evidence need not be sufficient by itself to prove a fact in issue. . . .\" United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 132 (2d Cir. 2010). \"[U]nless an exception applies, all 'relevant evidence is admissible.'\" White, 692 F.3d at 246.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The testimony of Eva, Michelle, and Kelly, is relevant, because it makes it less likely that Jane engaged with sexualized massages with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. During her testimony, Jane claimed that Eva, Michelle, and Kelly were all involved in or could confirm the sexualized massages involving Jane, Mr. Epstein, and Ms. Maxwell. Eva, Michelle, and Kelly are going to testify that they were not involved in sexualized massages and cannot \"confirm\" Jane's story. The testimony of Eva, Michelle, and Kelly is relevant because it makes it less likely",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011365",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Davis",
      "Eva",
      "Michelle",
      "Kelly",
      "Jane",
      "Mr. Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Giglio",
      "White",
      "Abu-Jihaad"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "City of New York",
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "December 16, 2021",
      "07/12/22",
      "Mar. 9, 2015",
      "1972"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 723",
      "07 CIV. 3998 DAB",
      "2015 WL 1062186",
      "405 U.S. 150",
      "692 F.3d 235",
      "753 F.3d 72",
      "630 F.3d 102",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011365"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the importance of cross-examination and the relevance of certain testimony. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}