mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009580.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "18",
    "document_number": "621",
    "date": "02/25/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 18 of 51\n\nthe scope of accomplice liability, and specifically, whether the defendant is culpable for all conduct related to a trip even if her role was limited to arranging the return flight. Indeed, the defendant's current understanding of the note's question was not her initial view, which triggered the defense to repeatedly request an instruction about the \"purpose of the travel.\" (Tr. 3138; see Tr. 3131 (requesting that the Court direct the jury's attention to the requirement that illegal activity was a \"significant and motivating purpose\" of the travel)).\n\nIt is therefore too difficult to parse the note into a particular set of facts and a question about those facts. The defendant's contrary understanding is brimming with speculation. The defendant presumes that the jury note indicates that the jurors \"decided that there was no corroborating evidence that Ms. Maxwell was present for, or helped arrange, any of Jane's trips to New York, but that the flight logs did corroborate that Ms. Maxwell was present for her trip to New Mexico,\" so \"the jury began evaluating Ms. Maxwell's involvement in the New Mexico trip to see if it supported a conviction under Count Four, which led to the question posed by the jury note.\" (Def. Mot. at 14-15). Nothing in the note explains why the jury was asking the question it did. Indeed, it would be odd for the jury to reject all of Jane's testimony about travel to New York and the ensuing sexual abuse in New York for lack of corroboration, and then conclude that the defendant arranged an unidentified commercial return flight for which there is no specific evidence in the record, including no specific corroboration of the defendant's role in arranging that flight. (See Tr. 3133 (defense argument that there is \"no evidence\" the defendant arranged a return flight from New Mexico)). And there is no reason the jury would have rejected Jane's testimony about sexual abuse in New York due to lack of corroboration, even though a flight record shows she was\n\n17\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009580",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 18 of 51",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the scope of accomplice liability, and specifically, whether the defendant is culpable for all conduct related to a trip even if her role was limited to arranging the return flight. Indeed, the defendant's current understanding of the note's question was not her initial view, which triggered the defense to repeatedly request an instruction about the \"purpose of the travel.\" (Tr. 3138; see Tr. 3131 (requesting that the Court direct the jury's attention to the requirement that illegal activity was a \"significant and motivating purpose\" of the travel)).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It is therefore too difficult to parse the note into a particular set of facts and a question about those facts. The defendant's contrary understanding is brimming with speculation. The defendant presumes that the jury note indicates that the jurors \"decided that there was no corroborating evidence that Ms. Maxwell was present for, or helped arrange, any of Jane's trips to New York, but that the flight logs did corroborate that Ms. Maxwell was present for her trip to New Mexico,\" so \"the jury began evaluating Ms. Maxwell's involvement in the New Mexico trip to see if it supported a conviction under Count Four, which led to the question posed by the jury note.\" (Def. Mot. at 14-15). Nothing in the note explains why the jury was asking the question it did. Indeed, it would be odd for the jury to reject all of Jane's testimony about travel to New York and the ensuing sexual abuse in New York for lack of corroboration, and then conclude that the defendant arranged an unidentified commercial return flight for which there is no specific evidence in the record, including no specific corroboration of the defendant's role in arranging that flight. (See Tr. 3133 (defense argument that there is \"no evidence\" the defendant arranged a return flight from New Mexico)). And there is no reason the jury would have rejected Jane's testimony about sexual abuse in New York due to lack of corroboration, even though a flight record shows she was",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009580",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Jane"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "New Mexico"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/25/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "621",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009580"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal brief, discussing the scope of accomplice liability and the defendant's role in arranging flights. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}