mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004233.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "287",
    "date": "05/20/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 287 Filed 05/20/21 Page 6 of 16\n\nI. The Court Should Grant a Bill of Particulars.\n\nA bill of particulars is appropriate if the indictment does not disclose to the defendant with sufficient particularity \"the nature of the charge pending against him, thereby enabling defendant to prepare for trial, to prevent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second time for the same offense.\" United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). Here, the revelation of new allegations from Accuser-3 disclosed for the first time in the government's opposition, as well as the government's continuing refusal to identify the names of the three accusers, justify the need for a bill of particulars to prevent unfair surprise at trial and to allow Ms. Maxwell to adequately prepare her defense.\n\nFirst, as it has done since the beginning of this case, the government continues to deny Ms. Maxwell the most basic piece of information she needs to investigate the allegations against her and prepare for trial - the names of the three individuals who have accused her of the crimes charged in the Indictment. Rather than attempt to justify withholding this information out of concern for the accusers' safety or privacy-an untenable argument, given that two of the three accusers, if we are correct about their identities, have already publicly identified themselves-the government instead argues that because it has provided enough information for Ms. Maxwell to guess who they are, there is no need to disclose their names at this point. (Opp. 181-82). Ms. Maxwell should not have to rely on guesswork to prepare for trial, especially when the testimony of these three accusers will comprise the core of the government's proof. With trial only four months away, Ms. Maxwell's need to have sufficient time to investigate the allegations against her vastly outweighs any countervailing interest the accusers may have in remaining anonymous.\n\nIf the government is unwilling to provide the names of the accusers, the Court should order the government to do so either as part of a bill of particulars or pursuant to its inherent authority to\n\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00004233",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 287 Filed 05/20/21 Page 6 of 16",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. The Court Should Grant a Bill of Particulars.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A bill of particulars is appropriate if the indictment does not disclose to the defendant with sufficient particularity \"the nature of the charge pending against him, thereby enabling defendant to prepare for trial, to prevent surprise, and to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second time for the same offense.\" United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987). Here, the revelation of new allegations from Accuser-3 disclosed for the first time in the government's opposition, as well as the government's continuing refusal to identify the names of the three accusers, justify the need for a bill of particulars to prevent unfair surprise at trial and to allow Ms. Maxwell to adequately prepare her defense.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, as it has done since the beginning of this case, the government continues to deny Ms. Maxwell the most basic piece of information she needs to investigate the allegations against her and prepare for trial - the names of the three individuals who have accused her of the crimes charged in the Indictment. Rather than attempt to justify withholding this information out of concern for the accusers' safety or privacy-an untenable argument, given that two of the three accusers, if we are correct about their identities, have already publicly identified themselves-the government instead argues that because it has provided enough information for Ms. Maxwell to guess who they are, there is no need to disclose their names at this point. (Opp. 181-82). Ms. Maxwell should not have to rely on guesswork to prepare for trial, especially when the testimony of these three accusers will comprise the core of the government's proof. With trial only four months away, Ms. Maxwell's need to have sufficient time to investigate the allegations against her vastly outweighs any countervailing interest the accusers may have in remaining anonymous.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "If the government is unwilling to provide the names of the accusers, the Court should order the government to do so either as part of a bill of particulars or pursuant to its inherent authority to",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004233",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Accuser-3"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "05/20/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 287",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004233"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 6 of 16."
}