mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003107.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "173",
    "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 173 of 239\n\nin bankruptcy proceeding). And the cases the defendant cites in which a perjury or false statements count was severed only underscore this point. In both cases, the statement itself concerned an entirely different subject matter, provable through largely if not entirely different evidence. See United States v. Botti, No. 08 Cr. 230 (CSH), 2009 WL 3157582, at *1, *5 (D. Conn. Sept. 25, 2009) (severing a structuring conspiracy and false statements related to that conspiracy from a “separate” corruption conspiracy); United States v. Mitan, No. 08-760, 2009 WL 2328870, at *3 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2009) (severing counts charging a fraud scheme from perjury count for an affidavit submitted as part of a bail motion, which “was not as an attempt to cover up the scheme to defraud, but rather an attempt to show that Court had erred” in its bail decision).\n\nFinally, the defendant argues that the counts are unrelated because the defendant’s testimony was given in response to questions “tangential to the defamation action,” and her answers “concealed” no crimes because they were “true and reflective of the poor questioning by the plaintiff’s lawyers.” (Def. Mot. 5 at 8-9). The defendant is free to make at least some of these arguments to the jury, but these assertions are not a lawful basis for severing Counts Five and Six. This is merely an attempt to refashion the defendant’s claim that she gave truthful, immaterial answers to ambiguous questions. But, as discussed in detail in Section V, those arguments have no merit.\n\nThird, the defendant has failed to carry her heavy burden under Rule 14(a) to show prejudice. At the outset, “[t]he contention that there is some inherent prejudice in joining perjury and related counts with substantive charges has been widely rejected.” Potamitis, 739 F.2d at 791.\n\nAnd courts routinely hold that there is no prejudice where the evidence in support of the two counts is “interconnected.” Blakney, 941 F.2d at 116; see Carson, 464 F.2d at 436 (“[T]he commonality\n\n146\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003107",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 173 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "in bankruptcy proceeding). And the cases the defendant cites in which a perjury or false statements count was severed only underscore this point. In both cases, the statement itself concerned an entirely different subject matter, provable through largely if not entirely different evidence. See United States v. Botti, No. 08 Cr. 230 (CSH), 2009 WL 3157582, at *1, *5 (D. Conn. Sept. 25, 2009) (severing a structuring conspiracy and false statements related to that conspiracy from a “separate” corruption conspiracy); United States v. Mitan, No. 08-760, 2009 WL 2328870, at *3 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2009) (severing counts charging a fraud scheme from perjury count for an affidavit submitted as part of a bail motion, which “was not as an attempt to cover up the scheme to defraud, but rather an attempt to show that Court had erred” in its bail decision).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, the defendant argues that the counts are unrelated because the defendant’s testimony was given in response to questions “tangential to the defamation action,” and her answers “concealed” no crimes because they were “true and reflective of the poor questioning by the plaintiff’s lawyers.” (Def. Mot. 5 at 8-9). The defendant is free to make at least some of these arguments to the jury, but these assertions are not a lawful basis for severing Counts Five and Six. This is merely an attempt to refashion the defendant’s claim that she gave truthful, immaterial answers to ambiguous questions. But, as discussed in detail in Section V, those arguments have no merit.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Third, the defendant has failed to carry her heavy burden under Rule 14(a) to show prejudice. At the outset, “[t]he contention that there is some inherent prejudice in joining perjury and related counts with substantive charges has been widely rejected.” Potamitis, 739 F.2d at 791.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "And courts routinely hold that there is no prejudice where the evidence in support of the two counts is “interconnected.” Blakney, 941 F.2d at 116; see Carson, 464 F.2d at 436 (“[T]he commonality",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "146",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003107",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "D. Conn.",
      "E.D. Pa."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "Sept. 25, 2009",
      "July 28, 2009",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "08 Cr. 230 (CSH)",
      "No. 08-760",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003107"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}