mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011209.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "703",
    "date": "07/12/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 7 Government's case—the defendant provided a supplemental disclosure of material under Rule 16(b)(1)(A). Document “Rule 16_007” appears to be a sale agreement for the defendant's home at 44 Kinnerton Street, London, dated December 19, 1996. Although the defense has not specified the relevance of this document, it appears to be offered in service of the argument that the defendant did not live at this address in 1994, which is when Kate testified she first visited the defendant there. To be clear, the document does not actually establish that fact: The defendant herself has testified under oath that she lived in the 44 Kinnerton Street residence beginning in 1992 or 1993 (see Exhibit B), and even assuming the date of sale is accurate, it hardly precludes the possibility that the defendant lived there at an earlier date.2 III. Discussion The defendant's decision to withhold the sale agreement until the close of the Government's case violates her Rule 16 obligations. The records were within her possession, custody, and control long before trial, and the theory for which the Government expects the defendant to use the agreement has been apparent since the Government's production of Jencks Act material in mid-October, before the defendant's initial Rule 16 deadline. By failing to disclose the agreement until the close of the Government's case, the defendant has prevented the Government from conducting a full investigation, causing prejudice to the Government. The Court 2 Nor does it preclude the possibility that Kate was simply mistaken about which of the defendant's London residences she first visited. 4 DOJ-OGR-00011209",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Government's case—the defendant provided a supplemental disclosure of material under Rule 16(b)(1)(A). Document “Rule 16_007” appears to be a sale agreement for the defendant's home at 44 Kinnerton Street, London, dated December 19, 1996.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although the defense has not specified the relevance of this document, it appears to be offered in service of the argument that the defendant did not live at this address in 1994, which is when Kate testified she first visited the defendant there. To be clear, the document does not actually establish that fact: The defendant herself has testified under oath that she lived in the 44 Kinnerton Street residence beginning in 1992 or 1993 (see Exhibit B), and even assuming the date of sale is accurate, it hardly precludes the possibility that the defendant lived there at an earlier date.2",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. Discussion",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant's decision to withhold the sale agreement until the close of the Government's case violates her Rule 16 obligations. The records were within her possession, custody, and control long before trial, and the theory for which the Government expects the defendant to use the agreement has been apparent since the Government's production of Jencks Act material in mid-October, before the defendant's initial Rule 16 deadline. By failing to disclose the agreement until the close of the Government's case, the defendant has prevented the Government from conducting a full investigation, causing prejudice to the Government. The Court",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 Nor does it preclude the possibility that Kate was simply mistaken about which of the defendant's London residences she first visited.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011209",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Kate",
      "defendant"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "44 Kinnerton Street",
      "London"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "December 19, 1996",
      "1992",
      "1993",
      "1994",
      "mid-October",
      "07/12/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "703",
      "Rule 16_007",
      "Exhibit B",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011209"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and a page number at the bottom. There are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations."
}