mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003006.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "72 of 239",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 72 of 239\n\nUnited States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651, 657 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). The defendant has not made such a showing. Her speculative assertions simply do not rise to that level.\n\nThe defendant first claims she has suffered substantial prejudice as a result of pre-indictment delay due to the unavailability of Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein's mother, Michael Casey (the alleged agent of Minor Victim-1), and Palm Beach Police Department Detective Joseph Recarey. She contends that the loss of Epstein demonstrates actual prejudice because Epstein \"would have\" testified that the defendant did not engage in the criminal activity with which she is charged. (Def. Mot. 7 at 8). That assertion is speculative at best, and the law is clear that \"proof of prejudice must be definite and not speculative.\" Birney, 686 F.2d at 105-06; see also Long, 697 F. Supp. at 657 (finding that \"perceived prejudice is speculative\" where there was \"no way of knowing what [the unavailable witness's] testimony would have been\"). To credit Maxwell's argument is to assume that Epstein, after being indicted with federal sex trafficking charges, would have taken the stand, would not have invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, and would have provided testimony that exculpated Maxwell, which a jury would have credited in the face of contradictory trial evidence. This is an exercise in chain upon chain of conjecture that comes nowhere close to meeting the burden of demonstrating actual prejudice. See Spears, 159 F.3d at 1085 (\"[A] defendant must do more than show that a particular witness is unavailable and that the witness' testimony would have helped the defense. He must also show that the witness would have testified, withstood cross-examination, and that the jury would have found the witness credible.\" (citations omitted)); see also United States v. Valona, 834 F.2d 1334, 1339 (7th Cir. 1987) (noting that prejudice analysis must consider whether the missing witness \"would have withstood cross-examination,\" whether the jury would have found him a \"credible witness,\" and whether the testimony, when compared to other trial evidence \"would affect the trial outcome\" (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).\n\n45\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003006",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 72 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651, 657 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). The defendant has not made such a showing. Her speculative assertions simply do not rise to that level.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant first claims she has suffered substantial prejudice as a result of pre-indictment delay due to the unavailability of Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein's mother, Michael Casey (the alleged agent of Minor Victim-1), and Palm Beach Police Department Detective Joseph Recarey. She contends that the loss of Epstein demonstrates actual prejudice because Epstein \"would have\" testified that the defendant did not engage in the criminal activity with which she is charged. (Def. Mot. 7 at 8). That assertion is speculative at best, and the law is clear that \"proof of prejudice must be definite and not speculative.\" Birney, 686 F.2d at 105-06; see also Long, 697 F. Supp. at 657 (finding that \"perceived prejudice is speculative\" where there was \"no way of knowing what [the unavailable witness's] testimony would have been\"). To credit Maxwell's argument is to assume that Epstein, after being indicted with federal sex trafficking charges, would have taken the stand, would not have invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, and would have provided testimony that exculpated Maxwell, which a jury would have credited in the face of contradictory trial evidence. This is an exercise in chain upon chain of conjecture that comes nowhere close to meeting the burden of demonstrating actual prejudice. See Spears, 159 F.3d at 1085 (\"[A] defendant must do more than show that a particular witness is unavailable and that the witness' testimony would have helped the defense. He must also show that the witness would have testified, withstood cross-examination, and that the jury would have found the witness credible.\" (citations omitted)); see also United States v. Valona, 834 F.2d 1334, 1339 (7th Cir. 1987) (noting that prejudice analysis must consider whether the missing witness \"would have withstood cross-examination,\" whether the jury would have found him a \"credible witness,\" and whether the testimony, when compared to other trial evidence \"would affect the trial outcome\" (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "45",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003006",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Michael Casey",
      "Joseph Recarey",
      "Maxwell",
      "Birney",
      "Spears",
      "Valona"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Palm Beach Police Department"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "7th Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1988",
      "1987"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "697 F. Supp. 651",
      "686 F.2d",
      "159 F.3d",
      "834 F.2d 1334",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003006"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case United States v. Maxwell. The text discusses the defendant's claims of prejudice due to pre-indictment delay and the unavailability of certain witnesses. The document is a printed court document with no handwritten text or stamps."
}