mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002914.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "199",
    "date": "04/09/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 199 Filed 04/09/21 Page 2 of 8\nPage 2\nor about 2007 during the Florida Investigation, as the defendant will be able to confirm for herself upon receipt of Jencks Act material, Minor Victim-4 did not agree to be interviewed by the Government until July 2020. The Government then conducted two preliminary interviews with Minor Victim-4 by video teleconference in the summer of 2020. Because of the difficult nature of the interview topics, however, the Government was not able to fully debrief Minor Victim-4 over video. Due to travel constraints and safety concerns arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government was unable to travel to meet with Minor Victim-4, who resides more than a day's drive away from New York, until January 2021. The Government then conducted multiple in-person interviews with Minor Victim-4, which concluded near the end of January 2021. Over the next two months, the Government worked expeditiously to conduct additional investigation to corroborate Minor Victim-4, including by interviewing additional witnesses, reviewing documents that had already been produced to the defense in discovery, and subpoenaing additional records, which the Government promptly produced to the defense upon receipt. After taking those investigative steps, the Government completed the necessary internal processes to prepare a superseding indictment, which it presented to the grand jury in late March, or approximately two months after concluding its debriefing of Minor Victim-4.\nSimply put, the S2 Indictment was brought in a timely manner upon the Government's collection of evidence to support the additional charges. The suggestion that the Government intentionally delayed obtaining the S2 Indictment to gain some strategic advantage has no basis in fact.1 Nor is there any merit to the defense's equally baseless suggestions that the Government\n1 The defense's implication that the S2 Indictment somehow reflects an acknowledgment of the strength of the defense's pretrial motions is similarly baseless and entirely illogical. Were that the case, and if the Government could have (as the defense incorrectly speculates) obtained this indictment any time it wished, then it would make far more sense for the Government to obtain the S2 Indictment in the first place or, at bare minimum, immediately upon receiving the defense\nDOJ-OGR-00002914",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 199 Filed 04/09/21 Page 2 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Page 2",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "or about 2007 during the Florida Investigation, as the defendant will be able to confirm for herself upon receipt of Jencks Act material, Minor Victim-4 did not agree to be interviewed by the Government until July 2020. The Government then conducted two preliminary interviews with Minor Victim-4 by video teleconference in the summer of 2020. Because of the difficult nature of the interview topics, however, the Government was not able to fully debrief Minor Victim-4 over video. Due to travel constraints and safety concerns arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government was unable to travel to meet with Minor Victim-4, who resides more than a day's drive away from New York, until January 2021. The Government then conducted multiple in-person interviews with Minor Victim-4, which concluded near the end of January 2021. Over the next two months, the Government worked expeditiously to conduct additional investigation to corroborate Minor Victim-4, including by interviewing additional witnesses, reviewing documents that had already been produced to the defense in discovery, and subpoenaing additional records, which the Government promptly produced to the defense upon receipt. After taking those investigative steps, the Government completed the necessary internal processes to prepare a superseding indictment, which it presented to the grand jury in late March, or approximately two months after concluding its debriefing of Minor Victim-4.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Simply put, the S2 Indictment was brought in a timely manner upon the Government's collection of evidence to support the additional charges. The suggestion that the Government intentionally delayed obtaining the S2 Indictment to gain some strategic advantage has no basis in fact.1 Nor is there any merit to the defense's equally baseless suggestions that the Government",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 The defense's implication that the S2 Indictment somehow reflects an acknowledgment of the strength of the defense's pretrial motions is similarly baseless and entirely illogical. Were that the case, and if the Government could have (as the defense incorrectly speculates) obtained this indictment any time it wished, then it would make far more sense for the Government to obtain the S2 Indictment in the first place or, at bare minimum, immediately upon receiving the defense",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002914",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Minor Victim-4",
      "defendant"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "grand jury"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2007",
      "July 2020",
      "summer of 2020",
      "January 2021",
      "late March",
      "04/09/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 199",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002914"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 2 of 8."
}