mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008950.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "26 of 37",
    "document_number": "600",
    "date": "02/11/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 600 Filed 02/11/22 Page 26 of 37\nUnited States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173, 180-81 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing the \"Korfant factors\" from United States v. Korfant, 771 F.2d 660, 662 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam)); accord United States v. Macchia, 35 F.3d 662, 667-68 (2d Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Diallo, 507 F. App'x 89 (2d Cir. 2013) (applying the Korfant factors to determine whether two narcotics conspiracies charged under 21 U.S.C. § 846 in same indictment were multiplicitous); United States v. Cooper, 886 F.3d 146, 155 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (applying the Korfant factors to determine whether two conspiracies charged under 18 U.S.C. § 371 in the same indictment were multiplicitous).\n\"[N]o dominant factor or single touchstone determines whether the compared conspiracies are in law and fact the same.\" Estrada, 320 F.3d at 181 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). \"If a defendant makes a non-frivolous showing on a double jeopardy claim that the two conspiracies under review are not distinct, the burden shifts to the Government to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the conspiracies are separate.\" Id. If the Court determines that the conspiracies are the same offense, the proper remedy post-conviction is for the Court to enter judgment on only one of the multiplicitous counts. Josephburg, 459 F.3d at 355 (citing Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 865 (1985)).\nB. The Proof at Trial Established, at Most, a Single Conspiracy.\nFrom the outset of the trial, the government framed the criminal conduct it sought to prove as a single conspiracy between Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to sexually abuse young girls. In its opening statement, the government told the jury:\nFor a decade, the defendant played an essential role in this scheme . . . She was setting young girls up to be molested by a predator. That's what we expect the evidence will show, that the defendant enticed and groomed multiple young girls to engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, that the defendant and Epstein enticed some of those girls to travel to Epstein's homes in different states, which the defendant knew would result in sexual abuse.\n21\nDOJ-OGR-00008950",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 600 Filed 02/11/22 Page 26 of 37",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173, 180-81 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing the \"Korfant factors\" from United States v. Korfant, 771 F.2d 660, 662 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam)); accord United States v. Macchia, 35 F.3d 662, 667-68 (2d Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Diallo, 507 F. App'x 89 (2d Cir. 2013) (applying the Korfant factors to determine whether two narcotics conspiracies charged under 21 U.S.C. § 846 in same indictment were multiplicitous); United States v. Cooper, 886 F.3d 146, 155 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (applying the Korfant factors to determine whether two conspiracies charged under 18 U.S.C. § 371 in the same indictment were multiplicitous).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"[N]o dominant factor or single touchstone determines whether the compared conspiracies are in law and fact the same.\" Estrada, 320 F.3d at 181 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). \"If a defendant makes a non-frivolous showing on a double jeopardy claim that the two conspiracies under review are not distinct, the burden shifts to the Government to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the conspiracies are separate.\" Id. If the Court determines that the conspiracies are the same offense, the proper remedy post-conviction is for the Court to enter judgment on only one of the multiplicitous counts. Josephburg, 459 F.3d at 355 (citing Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 865 (1985)).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The Proof at Trial Established, at Most, a Single Conspiracy.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "From the outset of the trial, the government framed the criminal conduct it sought to prove as a single conspiracy between Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to sexually abuse young girls. In its opening statement, the government told the jury:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For a decade, the defendant played an essential role in this scheme . . . She was setting young girls up to be molested by a predator. That's what we expect the evidence will show, that the defendant enticed and groomed multiple young girls to engage in sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, that the defendant and Epstein enticed some of those girls to travel to Epstein's homes in different states, which the defendant knew would result in sexual abuse.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "21",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008950",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Estrada",
      "Korfant",
      "Macchia",
      "Diallo",
      "Cooper",
      "Josephburg",
      "Ball",
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "2d Cir.",
      "D.C. Cir."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/11/22",
      "2003",
      "1985",
      "1994",
      "2013",
      "2018",
      "1985"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 600",
      "21 U.S.C. § 846",
      "18 U.S.C. § 371",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008950"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text discusses the concept of multiplicity in conspiracy charges and argues that the government's proof at trial established, at most, a single conspiracy between Epstein and Maxwell."
}