mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009602.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "40",
    "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 40 of 51\nfact, participate in the sexual abuse of the victims in the manner described in the Indictment. As a factual matter, the record is crystal clear that these witnesses were not with the defendant and Epstein at “every moment” during the period charged in the Indictment. See Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *4. It would thus be “impossible” for them “to testify that [the] defendant did not commit the charged crimes, so whatever helpful testimony [they] might have offered (the details of which are sparse in the motion) would be easily undermined on cross-examination.” Id. (citing Spears, 159 F.3d at 1081-85). Moreover, even assuming that these witnesses would have testified as the defendant claims and that such testimony would have been admissible, the defendant does not address why the unavailability of these particular individuals has caused her actual prejudice when other employees who worked for Epstein and the defendant were available to offer (and did offer) testimony about Epstein’s residences and the defendant’s role and time spent at such residences. It is the defendant’s burden to establish that these witnesses’ testimony could not be put before the jury through other means, and the defendant has not established—and cannot establish—that these four witnesses were “key” witnesses who would have testified at her trial in an irreplaceable way that would have helped, rather than hurt, her. Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752.\nIn particular, the defendant cites the absence of Pinto and Salhi, “architects who built, renovated, and decorated many of Epstein’s residences” and speculates that their testimony “would have cast significant doubt on Jane’s recollection of events.” (Def. Mot. at 29). The defendant has not set forth what Pinto and Salhi would have attested to had the charges been brought sooner. Moreover, at trial, the defendant cross-examined other employees who worked for Epstein during the relevant time periods—such as Juan Alessi and pilots Larry Visoski and David Rodgers—and\n39\nDOJ-OGR-00009602",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 621 Filed 02/25/22 Page 40 of 51",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "fact, participate in the sexual abuse of the victims in the manner described in the Indictment. As a factual matter, the record is crystal clear that these witnesses were not with the defendant and Epstein at “every moment” during the period charged in the Indictment. See Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *4. It would thus be “impossible” for them “to testify that [the] defendant did not commit the charged crimes, so whatever helpful testimony [they] might have offered (the details of which are sparse in the motion) would be easily undermined on cross-examination.” Id. (citing Spears, 159 F.3d at 1081-85). Moreover, even assuming that these witnesses would have testified as the defendant claims and that such testimony would have been admissible, the defendant does not address why the unavailability of these particular individuals has caused her actual prejudice when other employees who worked for Epstein and the defendant were available to offer (and did offer) testimony about Epstein’s residences and the defendant’s role and time spent at such residences. It is the defendant’s burden to establish that these witnesses’ testimony could not be put before the jury through other means, and the defendant has not established—and cannot establish—that these four witnesses were “key” witnesses who would have testified at her trial in an irreplaceable way that would have helped, rather than hurt, her. Cornielle, 171 F.3d at 752.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In particular, the defendant cites the absence of Pinto and Salhi, “architects who built, renovated, and decorated many of Epstein’s residences” and speculates that their testimony “would have cast significant doubt on Jane’s recollection of events.” (Def. Mot. at 29). The defendant has not set forth what Pinto and Salhi would have attested to had the charges been brought sooner. Moreover, at trial, the defendant cross-examined other employees who worked for Epstein during the relevant time periods—such as Juan Alessi and pilots Larry Visoski and David Rodgers—and",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "39",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009602",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Pierre-Louis",
      "Spears",
      "Cornielle",
      "Pinto",
      "Salhi",
      "Jane",
      "Juan Alessi",
      "Larry Visoski",
      "David Rodgers"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/25/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 621",
      "2018 WL 4043140",
      "159 F.3d at 1081-85",
      "171 F.3d at 752",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009602"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Jeffrey Epstein and the defendant. The text discusses the unavailability of certain witnesses and the defendant's claims regarding their testimony. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}