mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00006111.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "45",
    "document_number": "410-1",
    "date": "11/04/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 410-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 45 of 93\n\nCounts One and Three and Five: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Laws- Conspiracy and Substantive Counts\n\nCounts One, Three, and Five of the Indictment each charge the defendant Ms. Maxwell with participating in a \"conspiracy.\" As I will explain, a conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership—an agreement of two or more people to join together to accomplish some unlawful purpose. The crime of conspiracy to violate federal law is an independent offense. It is separate and distinct from the actual violation of any specific federal laws, which the law refers to as \"substantive crimes.\" Indeed, you may find the defendant Ms. Maxwell guilty of conspiring to violate federal law even if you find that the crime which was the object of the conspiracy was never actually committed.\n\nAs I will explain, the three different conspiracy counts are separate offenses and each conspiracy alleges a different purpose, which I will describe to you shortly.\n\nAdapted from Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instr. 19-2; the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. Lebedev, 15 Cr. 769 (AJN); the charge of the Hon. Kimba M. Wood in United States v. Almonte, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW); and the charge of the Hon. Denise L. Cote in United States v. Purcell, 18 Cr. 081 (DLC). See also United States v. Labat, 905 F.2d 18, 21 (2d Cir. 1990) (\"Since the essence of conspiracy is the agreement and not the commission of the substantive offense that is its objective, the offense of conspiracy may be established even if the collaborators do not reach their goal.\").\n\nCommented [CE59]: The defense objects to grouping the conspiracy counts together See prior objection\nCommented [RA(60R59]: See prior Government response\nCommented [CE61]: It is confusing to address the purposes of the three conspiracies here It is clearer to address them with each individual count\nCommented [RA(62R61]: See Government response regarding the ordering of counts",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 410-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 45 of 93",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Counts One and Three and Five: Conspiracy to Violate Federal Laws- Conspiracy and Substantive Counts",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Counts One, Three, and Five of the Indictment each charge the defendant Ms. Maxwell with participating in a \"conspiracy.\" As I will explain, a conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership—an agreement of two or more people to join together to accomplish some unlawful purpose. The crime of conspiracy to violate federal law is an independent offense. It is separate and distinct from the actual violation of any specific federal laws, which the law refers to as \"substantive crimes.\" Indeed, you may find the defendant Ms. Maxwell guilty of conspiring to violate federal law even if you find that the crime which was the object of the conspiracy was never actually committed.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As I will explain, the three different conspiracy counts are separate offenses and each conspiracy alleges a different purpose, which I will describe to you shortly.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Adapted from Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instr. 19-2; the charge of the Hon. Alison J. Nathan in United States v. Lebedev, 15 Cr. 769 (AJN); the charge of the Hon. Kimba M. Wood in United States v. Almonte, 16 Cr. 670 (KMW); and the charge of the Hon. Denise L. Cote in United States v. Purcell, 18 Cr. 081 (DLC). See also United States v. Labat, 905 F.2d 18, 21 (2d Cir. 1990) (\"Since the essence of conspiracy is the agreement and not the commission of the substantive offense that is its objective, the offense of conspiracy may be established even if the collaborators do not reach their goal.\").",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [CE59]: The defense objects to grouping the conspiracy counts together See prior objection",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [RA(60R59]: See prior Government response",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [CE61]: It is confusing to address the purposes of the three conspiracies here It is clearer to address them with each individual count",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Commented [RA(62R61]: See Government response regarding the ordering of counts",
      "position": "margin"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Kimba M. Wood",
      "Denise L. Cote"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "410-1",
      "15 Cr. 769",
      "16 Cr. 670",
      "18 Cr. 081"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with some handwritten comments in the margins. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
}